Skip to main content

Full text of "Municipal Administration In The Roman Empire"

See other formats


W < CO 


unio pal Administration 
in the Roman Empire 

Abbott and Johnson 


Call No. Accession No, 



This book should be returned on or before the date last marked below. 


This book is published on the Shreve Foundation established at 
Princeton University in memory of Benjamin Davis Shreve of the 
Class of 1 8 56 by the bequest of his widow "for the study of the 
history of nations, both ancient and modern* to ascertain the cause 
of their decay, degeneracy, extinction, and destruction, and to show 
the dangers that now exist and are arising which, if not checked, 
will injure, if not destroy, our free government" In 1924 
Professor Abbott was elected as the first Fellow on this Foundation. 





Late Kennedy Professor of Latin y Princeton University 



Professor of Classics^ Princeton University 





The studies set forth in this volume were first planned by 
Professor Frank Frost Abbott in 1914. In collaboration 
with the present writer the work was carried on with many 
interruptions under the general editorship of Professor 
Abbott until his death, July 23, 1924. For his kindly 
criticisms and generous help I shall always remain pro- 
foundly grateful. 

The municipal institutions of the Roman Empire 
contain in large measure the secret of the vitality and the 
decay of that ancient civilization which controlled the 
destinies of the world for a longer span than any imperial 
power whose history has yet been recorded. For this 
reason it has been our aim to trace the history of the rela- 
tions of these municipalities to Rome, their differing 
status, the development of Roman policy .towards them, 
and the circumstances attending their degline, and there- 
fore the decline of the empire. These rrirftters and certain 
others clearly relating to them are set ftrrth systematically 
in the Introduction. In this portion of the book we have 
made a study of the juridical and fiscal relations to Rome 
of communities of various classes, of the political organiza- 
tion and financial systems of these communities, of the 
attempts which were made to combine them into larger 
political entities through the provincial assemblies, of the 
development of the municipal policy of Rome, and the 
decline of the municipality. 

The last chapter, on municipal documents, may serve 
as a technical introduction to Part n of the book, in which 
are brought together inscriptions and papyri that throw 
light on the relations which the municipalities bore to 
Rome. These documents have hitherto been so widely 


scattered that it was thought advisable to gather them 
together in order that those interested in municipal 
institutions might be able to gain a first-hand compre- 
hensive survey of the problems involved in their study. 
No collection of this kind exists and the information which 
such a corpus provides is definite and accurate. The lower 
limit of time for this collection has been set at the end of 
the third century, for the reason that most constitutions 
antedate the fourth century and the influences which 
determined the course of events are clearly discernible in 
the earlier period. Moreover, it would be impossible to 
deal fully with the Byzantine period without doubling 
the compass of the book. 

It has been the aim of the editors to include all in- 
scriptions which furnish information of importance 
bearing upon the relations of Rome to her municipalities. 
Very fragmentary inscriptions and those which gave no 
information, known from documents already included, 
have been omitted. In the case of the documents from 
Egypt our choice has been limited more especially to the 
more important and representative papyri dealing with 
the towns and villages from the Roman occupation to the 
beginning of the Byzantine period. 

In general it should be stated for the purpose of de- 
fining the work of the two collaborators, that Mr Abbott 
directed his attention to conditions in the West, and the 
present writer to those in the East. This means, practically, 
that the former is primarily responsible for the Latin 
inscriptions and for the commentaries on them, and the 
latter for the Greek and bilingual inscriptions, the papyri, 
and the commentaries on the documents of these three 
classes. The authorship of each chapter in the Introduction 
is indicated in the Table of Contents. The manuscript 
of Mr Abbott's portion was fortunately in final form, and 
is here published with slight editorial revision. 

In view of the cost of printing, critical notes have been 
reduced to a minimum, typographical devices in the texts 


have been used as sparingly as possible, and in the Latin 
inscriptions in particular deviations from the text of a stone 
or tablet have been indicated simply by the use of italic 
letters. In the text of the papyri indications of obscure or 
doubtful letters by the customary convention have been 
omitted, but in all cases where the interpretation of a 
document depends upon the reading, the fact has been 
indicated in the commentary. 

In conclusion, thanks are due to Professor John W. 
Basore for reading the manuscript; to Professor Paul R. 
Coleman-Norton for undertaking the arduous task of 
verifying references and reading proof; to Professor D. M. 
Robinson for furnishing in advance of publication his text 
and commentary on the inscription discovered by him at 
Antioch; to Professor Edward Capps for his generous 
and helpful interest in these studies; and finally, to the 
Secretary and staff of the Cambridge University Press for 
their unfailing courtesy and care. 


March 20, 1926 



I. COLONIAE AND MUNICIPIA (dbbott) page 3 













PROVINCES (Abbott] II 7 





(Johnson) 177 


(Johnson) 197 

TION (Abbott) 232 









ENG before the republic came to an end Rome had 
placed the different communities which had been 
brought under her control in five or six well defined 
categories, according to their political status. But these 
distinctions do not hold for the earliest settlements or 
acquisitions of territory outside the physical limits of the 
city. The little market-towns which sprang up in early 
days on Roman territory had no separate political existence, 
and those who lived in them enjoyed no political rights or 
privileges because of their residence in them. Even Ostia 
had no local magistrates at the outset 2 . It was a part of 
the city-state of Rome. In other words Rome did not 
recognize the possibility of local self-government in any 
community dependent upon her or under her suzerainty. 
This policy was violated when Rome took certain com- 
munities under her control, but allowed them to retain 
some part of their previous sovereignty. She adopted the 
new practice for the first time, according to tradition, in 
the case of Antium, whose people were made up partly of 
Roman colonists and partly of earlier settlers 3 . Livy tells 

1 The early chapters of this Introduction are intended to present in out- 
line the characteristic features of the different classes of municipalities under 
the Roman government, and to observe the changes in the political status of 
these towns or in the method of founding them which we notice in passing 
from one period to another, or from one part of the Roman world to another. 
It should be observed, however, that no description can be given which will 
be applicable to all the members of a class, because they did not all enjoy 
identical rights and privileges. Some of the differences between towns of 
the same class in the matter of autonomy will be discussed in the commen- 
taries on the several inscriptions. 

2 Cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 775. 

3 Mommsen, St. R. 3, 778; Kornemann, R.E. 4, 585. 

C 3 ] 


us : Antiatibus quoque, qui se sine legibus certis, sine magis- 
tratibus agere querebantur, dati ab senatu ad iura statuenda 
ipsius coloniae patroni. Communities of this sort had their 
own charters, and elected magistrates took the place of the 
prefects heretofore sent out by Rome. Local pride prob- 
ably played a part in bringing about this change, and a 
desire to retain as much as possible of the old institutions 
and customs of the place, and the feeling that residents 
could administer the affairs of a village better than non- 
residents. Whether Rome thought it a wise policy to yield 
to these pleas for self-government, or whether she followed 
the line of least resistance, it is hard to say. 

At all events the way was open for the incorporation into 
the Roman state of communities possessing some measure 
of local autonomy. Such a political unit was called a 
civitas, whether it took the form of a city or not, whereas 
the term oppidum was used only of a city. The free use of 
the word civitas for Roman as well as for non-Roman com- 
munities begins in the second century of our era 1 . Before 
that time it was usually applied to native communities 
only, while those of Roman origin were styled coloniae 
or municipia. It is convenient for us to make this early 
distinction in the present discussion. 

Colonies were cities or villages made up of settlers sent 
out by Rome 2 . They fell into two classes, coloniae civium 
Romanorum and coloniae Latinorum, according to the 
political rights of the settlers and the status of the colony. 
The founding of a colony was a sovereign act, and, there- 
fore, under the early republic it was effected by a /ex y 
while under the empire it was the prerogative of the em- 
peror. Before the period of the revolution the establish- 

1 Kornemann, R.E. SuppL Erstes Heft, 302 /. 

2 Much use has been made in this discussion of colonies of Kornemann's 
excellent article colonia in R.E. 4, 511^ Other important articles are de 
Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. 2, 415^; Lenormant, Diet. Dar. i. 1303^.; Momm- 
sen, St. R. 3 passim ; Marquardt, St. Verw. i passim ; Abbott, Class. Phil. 
10(1915), 3 6 Sf- 

[ 4 ] 


ment of a colony called for the enactment of a special law 
by the popular assembly. This law specified the location 
of the colony, and the amount of state-land to be assigned, 
fixed the number of commissioners entrusted with the duty 
of making the settlement, and determined their duties. A 
typical instance of the method of founding a colony is the 
case of Antium 1 . In the period of transition, Sulla, Caesar, 
and the triumvirs did not trouble themselves to secure the 
passage of a special law, but acted by virtue of the general 
powers given to them. Thus Urso is styled a colonia iussu 
C. Caesaris dictatoris deducta*. Octavius, Antony, and 
Lepidus based their right to found colonies on the lex 
Titia, which established the triumvirate. When this 
transfer of authority had come about, of course the new 
sovereign named the commissioners, as the people had 
done in earlier days. It was the duty of the commissioners 
to lead the colonists out, settle them upon the land, estab- 
lish the form of government, and nominate the first 
incumbents of office. The colonists were given conquered 
land set aside for the purpose. 

The settlers in a Roman colony were Roman citizens, 
with an occasional admixture of socii^ and in Italy they had 
full right of ownership in their land (ex iure Quiritium^ and 
the Roman settlers enjoyed all the other public and private 
rights of Roman citizens, except in the matter of holding 
Roman magistracies. In the enjoyment of this privilege 
they were for a time restricted 3 . When Roman colonies 
in the later period were established in the provinces, the 
land was usually left subject to the burdens of other pro- 
vincial land. 

The Latin differed from the Roman colonies in size, 
composition, and political status. Three hundred was the 
normal number sent out to a Roman colony 4 , rarely as 
many as 2000 or 3000 5 , while Latin colonies usually 

1 Livy, 3. i. 5-7. 2 Cf. no. 26, chap. 106. 

3 Cf. no. n. 4 Cf. e.g. Livy, 8. 21. 11. 

5 C/.Livy, 39. 55541. 13. 

[ 5 ] 


numbered several thousand 1 . The majority of those who 
were sent out to a Latin colony were Latins or Italian 
allies, but Romans who were willing to accept Latin in 
place of their Roman citizenship were also enrolled. The 
Latin colonies of the early period bore the same relation 
to Rome that the members of the Latin League had held. 
They were free from the payment of tribute. They had 
the right of coinage. They had their own magistrates and 
laws, and they enjoyed the same private rights as Roman 
citizens 2 . On the other hand, while the settlers in the early 
Roman colonies were excused from regular military service, 
each Latin colony was required to furnish a military con- 
tingent to serve in the alae or cohortes. However, the 
twelve Latin colonies which were founded after 268 B.C. 
suffered a diminution in their privileges. They lost the 
right of coinage and the ius conubii, and they found it more 
difficult to obtain Roman citizenship 3 . Still another change 
in the situation came about in 89 B.C., for by virtue of the 
grant of Roman citizenship to the Italians in this year, all 
Latin colonies south of the Po were transformed into 
Roman municipia. In the same year the cities in Transpa- 
dane Gaul were given the rights of Latin citizenship, to 
be transformed in 49 B.C. into those of Roman citizenship. 
Consequently Latin colonies henceforth disappear from 
the peninsula. 

In Italy and the provinces the Latin colonies numbered 
about sixty-one, and the Roman colonies, about three 
hundred and eighty-one 4 . The earliest colonies were estab- 
lished as military outposts to hold and Romanize newly 
acquired territory. The most characteristic feature of the 
Roman colonies was the fact that they were established on 
the coast. This practice was followed without exception 
until 183 B.C., when the rule was broken by sending 

1 Cf. Livy, 10. i. 1-2. 

2 Mommsen, St. R. 3, 627^. 

3 Kornemann, R.E. 4, 518; cf.> however, Steinwenter, R.E. 10, 1267 /. 

4 Kornemann, R.E. 4, 514^.5 v. Premerstein, R.E. 10, 1240. 

[ 6 ] 


Roman colonies to Mutina, Parma, and Saturnia. A 
change in the motives which led to the founding of 
colonies appears under the Gracchi, who used colonization 
for the purpose of relieving the needy population of Rome, 
of promoting the prosperity of the country districts, and 
of stimulating trade. The admission of the proletariat to 
the army by Marius naturally led him to found colonies 
for needy veterans. A step which looked to this change in 
policy had been taken as early as 171 B.C. in the case of 
Carteia in Spain, which was settled by the sons born of 
Roman soldiers and Spanish women. The precedent thus 
set at Carteia, and taken up by Marius, of providing for 
veterans in colonies, was freely followed by the triumvirs 
and under the empire. 

Narbo Martius, established in Gallia Narbonensis in 
118 B.C., is the first clear instance of a colony outside 
the peninsula of Italy, a precedent which was not fully 
accepted until we come to the time of Caesar and the 
triumvirs, under whom between forty and fifty such settle- 
ments were made in the provinces 1 . Under the empire 
this policy was gradually discontinued. From the time of 
Hadrian almost all the new colonies in the provinces were 
not newly established settlements, but existing municipia 
or native civitates to which the title and rights of a colony 
were given by the emperor. This change in status was 
usually in the provinces the first step towards the acquisi- 
tion of Latin rights and of immunity from the payment of 
tribute 2 . 

The change which the republican system of nomencla- 
ture underwent under the dictators of the first century B.C. 
is significant of a change in the seat of power. The earliest 
instance of the new practice of naming a colony in honor 
of its autocratic founder is probably that of the colonia 
Mariana. The practice became the accepted one under the 

1 Abbott, Class. Phil. TO (1915), 372^*. 

2 Kornemann, R.E. 4, 566. 

[ 7 1 


empire, and is helpful in determining the foundation-date 
of a colony 1 . 

A municipium was not a new settlement, as a colony was, 
but resulted from the incorporation of a conquered town 
into the Roman state 2 . The functions of its local magis- 
trates and the limitations put upon their powers were 
determined in each case by the charter granted to it. Some 
interesting specimens of charters granted to colonies and 
municipia have come down to us from the time of the late 
republic, for Tarentum in Italy 3 and for the colony of 
Urso in Spain 4 , and from the time of the empire, for the 
municipia of Salpensa and Malaca in Spain 5 . The inhabit- 
ants of a municipium received complete Roman citizenship, 
as in Lanuvium and Aricia 6 , or received it in a restricted 
form, sine suffragio^ as in Fundi and Formiae, or with such 
limitations as the provincial municipia of Salpensa and 
Malaca had at a later date 7 . As we have already noticed, 
all the civitates sine suffragio south of the Po were given 
Roman citizenship by the leges lulia et Plautia Papiria of 
9089 B.C. Like Roman colonists the citizens in municipia 
were liable to service in the legions, and were subject to 
all the munera to which Roman citizens were subject. 
Indeed the ancients believed that the word municipium 
was derived from munus and capere. In their juridical 
position the municipia differed from the colonies in the 
fact that they could retain their traditional procedure in 
cases heard by their local magistrates, whereas the colonies 

1 For a list of the imperial appellatives used, cf. de Ruggiero, Le Colonie 
del Romani^ 96. 

2 Recent literature: Comparette, A. J. Ph. 27 (1906), \66ff.\ Decla- 
reuil, Quelques problemes d'histoire des institutions municipals au temps de 
I'Empire romain^ Heisterbergk in Philol. 50 (1891), 639^.; Jouguet, Vie 
munic.\ Jung, Hist. Zeitschr. 67 (1891), I ff.\ Levy, Rev. d. tt. grecq. 8 
(1895), 203/.; 12 (1899), 255^.; 14 (1899), 350^.; Liebenam, St. 
Verw.\ Mommsen, Ges. ScAr. i, 293^.; Toutain, Diet. Dar. s.v. munici- 
pium \ Toutain, Les citts romaines de la Tunisie. 

3 No. 20. 4 No. 26. 5 Nos. 64 and 65. 
6 Livy, 8. 14. 2-3. 7 Livy, 8. 14. 10; no. 64. 

[ 8 ] 


followed Roman law. If a municipium in Italy adopted 
Roman law, it was known as a municipium fundanum v . 

In the provinces we find two main classes of municipia, 
those whose citizens had Roman, and those whose citizens 
were restricted to Latin citizenship 2 . Some cities of the 
second class had the maius Latium, others only the minus 
Latium. Citizens in communities having the maius Latium 
gained Roman citizenship when admitted to the local 
senate. In towns having minor Latin rights only election 
to a local magistracy could win this privilege for them 3 . 
Provincial municipia, like colonies and peregrine civitates, 
were subject to tribute, and did not enjoy full ownership 
of land, although perhaps the ius Italicum was granted to 
favored municipia. This right by a legal fiction made their 
land part of Italy, and therefore conferred full ownership, 
or dominium, on the holders, as well as freedom from the 
payment of tribute 4 . So far as local administration was 
concerned, most municipia were more or less under the 
control of the governor of their province, whereas the 
colonies were strictly autonomous in the matter of local 
affairs 5 . This difference explains in part why so many 
provincial municipia begged the emperors to make them 

1 Cf. Elmore, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. 47, 

2 Toutain, Diet. Dar. s.v. municipium, 2030 f. 

3 Gaius, i. 9596; no. 64. 

4 Cf. v. Premerstein, R.E. 10, 1242^. 

6 On the possession of libertas by Roman colonies, cf. Toutain, MM. J. 
arch. 18 (1898), 141^.; v. Premerstein, op. cit. 1248. 

[ 9 ] 





writer of the lex de Gallia Cisalpina^ in desig- 
nating the communities in Cisalpine Gaul to which 
a certain provision is to apply, mentions oppidum 
municipium colonia -praefectura forum vicus conciliabulum 
castellum territorium* . Oppidum is a generic word for an 
autonomous community, and territorium is used of the 
country district outside the limits of a settlement, but 
belonging to it. The other words in the list have more or 
less definite technical meaning, and if to them we add the 
terms pagus y gens^ canabae^ and saltus^ we shall probably 
have a complete catalogue of the names given in the West 
to the smaller administrative units. The first three of these 
terms, municipium^ colonia^ and praefectura^ stand apart 
from the rest to indicate communities of a clearly marked, 
general type, and again the praefectura^ which did not 
enjoy all the rights of self-government in local affairs, 
stands opposed to the more fortunate municipium and 
colonia. Praefectura^ in fact, may be thought of as a generic 
term applicable to any community which lacked the full 
right of self-government. In this sense, as we shall see, 

1 Outside of the discussions in the standard treatises of Mommsen 
(St. R. 3, 765^".), Marquardt (St. Ferw. i, 34_^.)> Willems (Droit public 
rom. 357 f.) and Madvig (Verf. u. Verw. i, 44, 49), some of the most 
recent literature on the communities treated in this chapter are papers by 
Schulten in PhiloL 53 (1894), 629-686; Hermes, 29 (1894), 481-516; 
and Rh. Mus. 50 (1895), 489-557; Hardy, Six Roman Laws, \\^ff- and 
articles under the pertinent headings in Diet. Dar., R.E. and the Diz. Ep. 
For a convenient list of the praefecturae>fora> vici y castella> pagi, and sa/tus 
mentioned in Dessau's collection of inscriptions, cf. Dessau, 3, pp. 619, 
660-664, 669. 

2 No. 27, C. 21,11. 2/. 

[ 10 ] 


it comprehends all the terms, except territorium, which 
follow it in the list given above. 

The title praefectus was given to an official to whom 
some higher authority had delegated the power to perform 
certain functions. So far as the villages and cities of the 
empire were concerned, the source of authority might be 
the central government at Rome or some one of the 
civitates. The officials of the first sort were the praefecti 
iure dicundo sent out by the urban praetor to administer 
justice in the settlements founded by Rome or annexed 
by her, as well as the special praefecti iure dicundo Capuae 
Cumis who were elected in the comitia on the nomination of 
the praetor. The term prefecture could also be applied 
to the small communities which did not have an inde- 
pendent status, but were attached to a neighboring 
civitas. In this case the authority of the prefect came, not 
from Rome, but from the civitas. The residents in Italian 
prefectures connected with Rome lacked in the early 
period some of the qualities of citizenship, but later these 
communities either attained the position of municipia^ or 
while retaining the name of praefecturae, differed from 
municipia only in the fact that they did not have II viri 
or IV viri 1 . As for the other class of prefectures, they 
maintained their existence down to a late date. Civitates 
usually had territoria dependent upon them. In these 
territoria hamlets were scattered here and there, and in the 
villages at a distance from the governing city justice was 
administered and certain other powers were exercised by 
a prefect sent out for that purpose by the municipal 
authorities. To such an official, for instance, reference 
seems to be made in CIL. x, 6104, an inscription of the 
Augustan age: Carthagine aedilis, praefectus iure dicundo 
vectigalibusque quinquennalibus locandis in castellis 
LXXXIII. Similarly the magistrates of the Genuenses ex- 
ercised jurisdiction over the residents of the castellum 

1 Cagnat, Diet. Dar. s.v. pracfcctura. 


Vituriorum 1 , In one case we hear of the duovir of a colony 
acting as prefect of a castellum*. It is impossible to draw 
an exact line of distinction between the several minor com- 
munities, but for purposes of convenience in discussion 
the fora, conciliabula, vici, and castella may be put together. 
These in turn fall into two groups, the fora and conciliabula 
on the one hand, and the vici and castella on the other. 
Settlements of the first two classes were always authorized 
by the central government and thus bore a certain re- 
semblance to colonies 3 . Indeed it is quite possible that in 
the earliest period Roman colonies held the same legal 
relation to Rome as the fora and conciliabula did in later 
times 4 . This official relation for the fora is indicated by 
such typical names as Forum Popili and Forum Livi. 
Most of them were founded by Roman magistrates 
charged with the construction of a highway, and the name 
is found most frequently in northern Italy 5 , and for settle- 
ments made under the republic. In the last century of the 
republic most of the fora and conciliabula were erected into 
communities with full rights of local self-government. 

On a somewhat lower plane stood the vici and castella. 
Of them Isidore remarks 6 : vici et castella et pagi sunt, 
quae nulla dignitate civitatis ornantur, sed vulgari homi- 
num conventu incoluntur et propter parvitatem sui 
maioribus civitatibus attribuuntur. The vici, at least, were 
usually private settlements, and the castella may be re- 
garded as fortified vici, although in the founding of a 
castellum probably the initiative would ordinarily be taken 
by a military authority, and the commandant may well 
have acted at the outset as the local magistrate 7 . Most of 

1 No. 10, 11. 43-44. For a specific illustration of the relations between a 
civitas and its attributi, see commentary on no. 49 on the question at issue 
between the municipium of Tridentum and the Anauni. 

2 CIL. vm, 15726. 3 Schulten, R.E. 4, 7997. 
* Mommsen, St. R. 3, 77$Jf. 5 Schulten, R.E. 7, 62. 

6 Orig. 15. 2. 11. 7 Mommsen, Hermes, 24 (1889), 200. 


the castella were naturally on the frontiers 1 . Some of the 
vici and castella were in time made independent com- 
munities. This happened, for instance, in the case of 
Sufes 2 , and occasionally a civitas was reduced to the 
position of a dependent vicus. An interesting instance of 
this sort is furnished by the petition of the people of 
Orcistus 3 . In a few cases we find the name vicus cana- 
barum* applied to a community, but settlements of this 
sort do not seem to have differed from canabae^ which 
come next in the order of discussion. 

This word in its general sense was applied to the 
temporary shops and booths put up by merchants. It 
was natural to use it also of the settlements of merchants 
and camp-followers which sprang up about the camps. 
They were usually located so as to leave a free space 
between the fortifications of the camp and the hamlet in 
question. The organization was based on the resident 
Roman citizens, and, with its magistri or curatores^, prob- 
ably bore a close resemblance to the conventus civium 
Romanorum, of which we have a reasonably complete 
record 6 . Probably the native women by whom the 
soldiers in the camp had children lived in these nearby 
villages, so that it was natural for the veterans on receiving 
their discharge and the legalization of their marriages 
to settle in the canabae with their wives and children. To 
them we have reference in an inscription from Aquincum 7 
and elsewhere. In the history of the Roman municipality 
the canabae have a special interest for us, because we can, 

1 For a list, not absolutely complete, cf. Diz. Ep. 2, i$of. The cas- 
tellum Carcassonne has preserved its external features up to the present day. 

2 CIL. vin, 11427; Kubitschek, R.E. 3, 1757. 

3 No. 154. 4 Schulten, Philol. 53 (1894), 6717. 

5 CIL. in, 6166; v, 5747; and the phrase civibus Romanis consistenti- 
bus ad canabas leg. v {An. //>. 1920, no. 54). 

6 See Kornemann, s.v. convening RE. 4, 1182-1200. Mommsen's 
theory (Hermes, 7 (i 873), 299^".) that the canabae had a military organiza- 
tion is no longer held; cf. Schulten, R.E. 3, 1452; Hermes 29 (1894), 507. 

7 CIL. in, 3505. 

[ 13 ] 


in some instances, trace their growth from the earliest 
settlement by Roman citizens up to the granting of a 
municipal charter. This is true, for example, of Apulum 1 , 
Aquincum 2 , Carnuntum 3 , and notably of Lambaesis 4 . 
Some of these settlements, like Carnuntum, even attained 
the dignity of a colony 5 . 

The pagus 6 differed essentially from all the communities 
which have been mentioned thus far. The meaning of the 
term varied somewhat from one period to another and 
from one part of the Roman world to another, but the 
canton was always thought of as a rural administrative 
unit, and was opposed in sense to civitas^ urbs, or oppidum. 
The Romans found these rural subdivisions in their con- 
quest of Italy and of other parts of the western world, and 
they were frequently preserved intact, but were usually 
given a Roman name. Caesar uses the term to indicate 
part of a native tribe 7 , but under the empire it came to 
designate very definitely a territorial unit. 

The inhabitants of a canton might live dispersed or in 
hamlets (vici). They formed a commune for such religious 
purposes as the celebration of festivals and the mainten- 
ance of the local cult, and for such administrative purposes 
as the repairing of roads and the apportionment of the 
water supply. The religious side of the community life is 
indicated by such names as pagus Martins and pagus 
ApollinariSy although other cantons bore a local name, e.g. 
pagus VeronensiS) or even a gentile name, as was the case, 
for instance, with the pagus Valerius. The cantons enjoyed 
a certain degree of autonomy. We read in the inscriptions 

1 Tomaschek, R.E. 2, 290 /. 

2 Tomaschek, R.E. 2, 333. 3 Kubitschek, R.E. 3, i6or/. 

4 Wilmanns, Comm. Mommscn, 190^.; Cagnat, Varmte romaine 
d'Afrique, passim. 
6 CIL. in, 4236. 

6 An extended discussion of the subject is given by A. Schulten, Die 
Landgemeinden in rom. Reich y Philol. 53 (1894), 629-655. For recent 
literature, see Toutain in Diet. Dar. and Liibker, Rtallexikon> s.v. pagus. 

7 E.G. i. 12. 


of their magistri and their decrees. In most cases probably 
the decrees were passed in popular assemblies, but in one 
case at least, we hear of the decurions of a canton l . In later 
days the pagi must have lost largely their rights of self- 
government, because after Diocletian's time we hear fre- 
quently of the praef ecti or praepositi pagorum 2 . 

A larger rural unit than the pagus was the gens or 
popu/us. In Spain and Gaul, for instance, the Romans 
found it convenient to deal with the tribal organizations, 
and to accept the division of these tribes into the tradition- 
ally accepted smaller cantons. The Helvetii, for example, 
were divided into four cantons in Caesar's time 3 . A 
judicial prefect was put in charge of a tribe or group of 
cantons. Thus we hear of a praef. gentis Cinithiorurn* and 
a praef ectus civitatium in Alpibus Maritumis^. In these 
cases Rome dealt with a whole people, not with single 
cities. Each tribe, however, had one or more villages, 
which were made centres of administration. If these grew 
in importance, they might develop into autonomous cities, 
and receive Latin or Roman rights as the principal village 
of the Vocontii did 6 . 

At the bottom of the scale, so far as the enjoyment of 
self-government was concerned, were the coloni on large 
private and imperial estates. Our information about the 
political and economic organization of these estates in the 
West comes almost entirely from inscriptions found 
during the last forty years 7 . All but one of these docu- 

1 OIL. vin, 1548. 

2 The conventus civium Romanorum scarcely belong among the com- 
munities under discussion here. 

3 B.C. i. 12. 4 CIL. vin, 10500. 5 CIL. v, 1838. 

6 Cf. Kornemann, R.E. 4, 545 and Schulten, RA. Mus. 50 (1895), 521. 

7 These inscriptions are the E pis tula data a Licinio Maximo etFeliciore 
Angus ti liber to procuratoribus ad exemplum legis Mancianae (no. 74) found 
in 1896 at Henchir-Mettich, the Ara legis Hadrianae (Bruns, 115) found 
in 1892 at Ai'n-Ouassel, the Sermo et epistulae procuratorum de terris vacuis 
excolendis (no. 93) found in 1906 at Aln-el-Djemala, the Rescriptum Corn- 
modi de saltu Burunitano (no. 1 1 1) found in 1879 at Souk-el-Khmis, and 

[ '5 ] 


ments come from Africa, so that a description of the 
organization of the saltus based on them applies strictly 
to that region, although the same system in its general 
outlines probably prevailed in other parts of the empire. 
The growth of great estates is closely connected with the 
policy which Rome adopted in dealing with the ager 
publicus. The land of a conquered people passed auto- 
matically under Roman ownership. Some of the cultivated 
land might be used as the site of a colony, some turned 
back to the natives in return for a rental. As for the un- 
cultivated land, capital was needed for its development, 
and it was occupied to a great extent by rich Roman 
landlords. Under this system immense estates came under 
the control of private owners both in Italy and the pro- 
vinces. This was particularly true of Africa, of which Pliny 
tells us that in Nero's time sex domini semissem Africae 
possidebant, cum interfecit eos Nero princeps 1 . The early 
emperors, as one may infer from Pliny's remark, saw 
clearly the political and economic danger with which this 
situation threatened the government and society, and set 
themselves to work to remove it 2 . The land must belong 
to the state. This change in ownership was accomplished 
partly by way of legacies, but in larger measure through 
confiscation. The land became again public land, to be 
administered henceforth by the emperor, and by the time 
of the Flavians most of the great estates had become 
crown-lands 3 . They were too large to be made the 
territoria of neighboring cities. They were therefore 
organized on an independent basis, and with the formation 
of the saltus a new and far-reaching principle was intro- 
duced into the imperial system. Hitherto Rome had made 

the Rescrlptum Philipporum ad colonos vici cuiusdam Pkrygiac, found in 
1897 in Phrygia (no. 141). Cf. also nos. 122 and 142. Information con- 
cerning the system followed on each of these imperial domains may be 
found in the commentaries on the inscriptions mentioned. 

1 N.H. 18. 6. 35. 

2 Cf. Rostowzew, Gesch. d. rom. Kol. 378. 

3 Rostowzew, op. cit. 379. 


the civitas the political and social unit. It had dealt 
administratively with the individual through the magis- 
trates or decurions of his community. The coloni on an 
imperial estate had no political organization, or at most 
only a rudimentary one. They were, therefore, brought 
into direct relations with the emperor or his personal 
representative. In carrying out this plan of government 
for the domains located in a given region, a method was 
adopted not unlike that which had been followed in the 
case of a newly acquired province. Just as a senatorial 
commission under the republic had drawn up a lex pro- 
vinciae to fix the relations of the civitates to the central 
government and the form of government for the province 
within which they lay, or just as emperors granted charters 
to municipalities, so representatives of the emperor drew 
up a statute for the domains of a given district. The earliest 
of these statutes to which we have any reference is the 
lex Manciana 1 , which was probably not a system of regula- 
tions drawn up by the owner of a private estate, as is 
commonly supposed 2 , but was rather the work of an im- 
perial legate, perhaps of the Emperor Vespasian 3 . The 
lex M-anciana continued in force in Africa until it was 
supplanted by the lex Hadriana, to which reference is 
made in a document of the time of Commodus 4 and in 
another of a later date 5 . From a study of these docu- 
ments, supplemented by information to be had from other 
inscriptions, it is possible to determine the administrative 
system which was introduced into the imperial domains. 
Each estate, or saltus, was in charge of a procurator saltus, 
who was usually a freedman, and all the procurators of a 
given region were under a procurator tractus^ of equestrian 

* No. 74, 1. 6. 

2 Hirschfeld, 123, n. 3; Seeck, R.E. 4, 484; Toutain, Nouv. rev. hist, dc 
droitfr.etttr. 21 (1897), 393^.; 23 (1899), \\\ff. 

3 Rostowzew, op. cit. 329. 4 No. in, 11. 5, 26. 
5 Bruns, 115, 1. 7. 

AMA [ 17 ] 2 


rank 1 . Sometimes between these two officials was a 
procurator regtonis. The procurators were not under the 
control of the proconsul, but were directly responsible to 
the emperor 2 . The business affairs of an estate were in 
charge of a conductor^ who was a freeman or a freedman 
and was responsible for the management of the entire 
estate. Most of the land was rented to tenants under 
five-year contracts, and each tenant was personally re- 
sponsible for the payment of the rental to the imperial 
collector. In case of non-payment the conductor proceeded 
against him 3 . Part of the land in an estate could be 
leased by the conductor and worked directly by him or 
leased to tenants 4 . For the purpose of working this land 
he could require a certain number of days' labor annually 
from each tenant. 

With this sketch in mind of the administrative arrange- 
ments on an estate, let us fill in some of the details of the 
plan. No specimen of the fundamental law for an estate 
has come down to us in its entirety, but the articles of the 
lex Manciana and lex Hadriana which are extant prove that 
it provided in the minutest detail for the regulation of the 
affairs of the imperial domains. It established a system of 
administration; it specified the powers and duties of the 
'procurator^ the conductor \ and their assistants; it determined 
the rights and duties of the colonus, fixed his rental, and 
provided for him a method of appeal. Such a law was 
drawn up for a large region. Consequently it might 
violate the usage of a particular locality. There were two 
points especially in which this seems to have happened, 
viz. in determining the amount of corn, wine, or other 

1 For a list of the tractus in Africa, cf. Schulten, Die romischen Grund- 
herrschaften, 62 ff. For a list of the imperial domains in other parts of the 
Roman world, cf. Hirschfeld, Der Grundbesitx d. rom. Kaiser in d. enten 
drei Jahrhunderten, Klio, ^ (1902), 45-72; 284-315. 

2 Hirschfeld, Klio, 2 (1902), 295. 

3 Rostowzew, Geschtckte d. Staatspacht, 443. 

4 Rostowzew, op. cit. 443-4. 

[ 18 ] 


produce which the tenant should pay as rental 1 , and in 
fixing the number of days' labor which the conductor 
might require of the tenant. In case of dispute on such 
points the matter was referred to the procurator saltus^ or 
was carried up to the emperor or his deputy, the pro- 
curator tractus. The same method of appeal was followed 
if the fundamental law was violated. Thus the tenants on 
the saltus Burunitanus complain that they are required to 
give more than six days' labor each year to the conductor*^ 
that the conductor is very wealthy and has secured the 
support of the procurator of the estate 3 , and that they have 
been flogged and maltreated by soldiers, although some 
of them are Roman citizens 4 . In the case of such petitions 
as this the emperor caused his decision to be engraved on 
a tablet and to be placed where it could be seen by all the 

Within the limitations of, and in accordance with, the 
forms imposed by the statute and by subsequent decisions 
of the emperor, the procurator was the administrative and 
judicial officer of the domain. It is his duty to maintain 
order, and he may even employ soldiers for this purpose 5 . 
The tenants on the saltus Burunitanus recognize their 
lowly condition in their petition to the emperor by speak- 
ing of themselves as rustici tui vernulae et alumni saltuum 
tuorum. Inasmuch as they had the right to petition the 
emperor and had a magister^ they evidently had a rudi- 
mentary political organization, but they had no form of 
local government 7 . They did not even have the political 
rights which attributi enjoyed, because they were attached 
to no civitas. The fact that the domains were extra- 
municipal carried with it certain advantages as well as 

1 Hyginus, Gromatici vetercs (Lachmann), 205. 

2 Cf. no. in, Col. in, 11. 12-13. 

3 Ibid. Col. in, 11. 1-12. 4 Ibid. Col. n, 11. 11-16. 
5 Ibid. Col. n, 1. n. 6 Ibid. Col. in, 11. 28-29. 
7 Ibid. Col. iv, 1. 27; cf. also Ldcrivain, Diet. Dar. 3, 9637. 


disadvantages 1 . The coloni were thereby relieved from all 
the municipal charges which in the later period weighed 
so heavily on the civitates. The evil side of their political 
situation lay in the fact that they formed a special social class, 
in a territory of well marked limits, under officials with large 
powers whose sympathies lay with their masters, the conduc- 
tores. Their only recourse was to the emperor, and appeal 
to him was difficult and dangerous. As the control of the cen- 
tral government over the outlying regions became weaker, 
the co/o%iwere more and more at the mercy of the conductores 2 . 
As we have noticed in another connection 3 , the de- 
basement of the coinage and the pressing need of food for 
the Roman rabble and for the armies, forced Diocletian 
to make contributions in kind a fixed part of the tribute 
from the provinces. This heavy demand, coming as it 
did at a time when the amount of cultivated land was de- 
creasing, and the productivity of the soil declining, called 
for higher rentals than tenants were willing to pay. Their 
only recourse was to abandon their holdings, but this 
would have made matters still worse. It must be pre- 
vented at all hazards, and Constantine made it illegal for 
tenants to leave their farms. But probably his edict only 
gave legal recognition to a situation which already ex- 
isted. In earlier times tenants had been inclined to retain 
their holdings, the renewal of leases was probably taken 
for granted, and tenancies descended from father to son. 
As for the conductor also, some time after the third century, 
he ceased to take a saltus for a fixed period, but settled on 
it for life, became its practical owner, and bequeathed it 
to his heir 4 . It was ruinous for him to have frequent 
changes in his tenants, or to have his land pass out of 
cultivation, and this he prevented. When this point had 
been reached, the colonus had become a serf. 

1 For the history of extra-territoriality, which seems to be of eastern 
origin, cf. Rostowzew, Gesck. d. rom. KoL I7$ff. 

2 For a few instances of the development otvici of tenants into civitates y 
cf. Pelham, Essays, 298. 3 Cf. pp. I2<)ff. 

4 Rostowzew, op. cit. 396^. 

[ 20 ] 


IN the early history of Greece the union of villages and 
cities (crui/oi/cicr/xos) had led to the grouping of a large 
number of tribes (Zdvrj) in city-states. These became 
the political centres of the groups, although a large part 
of the population remained in the original villages and 
retained some form of administration in the management 
of local affairs, such as games and religious festivals 1 . 
Occasionally we find some political legislation, as, for 
example, in the Mesogaea of Attica where, in the third 
century, certain denies united to protect their lands 
against raids 2 . When Demetrius founded Demetrias by 
the union of neighboring cities and villages, the former 
of these, as demes of the new town, still retained a local 
assembly and local magistrates, although the sovereignty 
which they possessed must have been limited 3 . In some 
of the more backward districts of Greece, such as Aetolia, 
Arcadia, and Epirus, villages existed with an independent 
organization, and were not attached to any city. The 
records of such communities, however, have not been pre- 
served 4 . In Thrace the tribal organization was governed 
by a phylarch. The people lived in villages, several of 
which sometimes united in a KOLVOV^ whose chief magis- 
trates were called comarchs 5 . In this province we also 
find toparchies, which seem to have had a central govern- 
ment modelled on that of the Greek city 6 , 

1 Diet. Dar. s.v. KCO/A*/; Kuhn, Die Entstehung der Stadt, i88/.; R.E. 
s.v. KttTOi/a'tt, KwfJLrj. 

2 Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, 207. 

3 Ath. Mitt. 14 (1889), 1 96^. 

4 Diet. Dar. s.v. KOJ/U.T/; Kuhn, op. cit. 24^*., 

5 Cagnat, IGRR. i, 721, 728. fl No. 131. 


Villages sometimes developed independently into cities, 
or were detached by force from the municipality, and con- 
stituted as independent communities. A case like the 
dispersion of Mantinea by Agesilaus was rare 1 . Mantinea 
and Corinth were, for a time, made villages of Argos as 
a result of war 2 , but, in general, the loss of civic status 
by a municipality was due to economic weakness, especi- 
ally in Hellenistic and Roman times. 

In Asia Greek culture had not penetrated beyond the 
maritime regions before the conquests of Alexander, and 
the interior of the Persian kingdom was almost entirely 
composed of village-communities. Under Roman rule we 
find these organizations still existing in various forms. 
Such names as STJ/XOS, Kcofjurjy /coyxoTroAis, /r^rp 
Tre/not/as, TroXt^z/^, TroXt^^toi/, /caroi/aa, 
P a ^ X^P^ ^ cftTTopioi/, e/ou/xa, fypovpioV) T 
and rectos are common 3 . To these might be added 
stationes^ regtones^ and mansiones which came in under 
Roman administration 4 . In inscriptions 877/1109, Katfjir), and 
KOLTOLKia are the terms usually applied to villages 5 . 

Under Roman rule village-communities which were 
not under the control of a municipality might be found on 
private or imperial estates, or under the control of priests 
in a temple-state, or grouped in a sort of commonwealth 
(KOIVOV or eTrap^ia) whose administrative centre was a 
/x7?T/30K<u/x,ia. Since the Romans followed the Greek policy 
of extending the municipal organization wherever possible, 

1 Xenophon, Hellenica, 5. 2. 7. For the dispersion of Phocian towns by 
the Amphictyonic Council in 346, see Diodorus, 16. 60. 2. 

2 Plutarch, Aratus, 45; Xenophon, op. cit. 4. 4. 6. 

3 These terms are found constantly in Strabo. 

4 Kuhn, Die stadt. u. biirgerL Ferfassung d. rom. Reichs, 2, 238, 317 n. 
The development of military canabae into municipalities is not common in 
the Orient. Leggun in Syria probably took its name from the military 
camp established in the town Caparcotna (RA. Mus. 58 (1903), 633). Cf. 
Brlinnow, Prov. Arab. 2. 24^. 

5 For the distinction between KW/XT; and /caroi/a'a, cf. Chapot, La prov* 
rom. proc. d'Asie, 97 f. R.. s.v. KOLTOIKIO.. 

[ 22 ] 


many of these villages were transformed into cities. The 
fjirjTpoKcofjiia usually became the metropolis and the de- 
pendent districts formed the territorium of the new city. 
In founding Zela, Pompey added to its territory several 
eparchies 1 . The temple-states, which were a characteristic 
organization in Asia, were composed of groups of villages 
under the administration of the priests attached to the 
temple. Although the residents in these communities 
were usually hieroi or hierodouloi, whose status was vir- 
tually serfdom, some form of political organization was 
probably permitted 2 . The temple-states were deprived 
of their power either by the Greek kings or by the Roman 
rulers, and the seat of the temple usually became the civic 
centre, while the estate was converted into the territorium 
of the city. The worship of the god became the civic cult. 
Some of these temple-states were added to the estates of 
the emperors 3 . In Judea the destruction of Jerusalem 
brought an end to the power of the temple as an adminis- 
trative factor in the control of the Jewish villages. 

On the imperial estates the agent of the emperor was 
probably the administrator of the smaller communities, 
where the tenants were chiefly serfs. In the larger villages 
there was a quasi-municipal organization which probably 
developed as a result of the settlement of free tenants who 
formed the nucleus of a curia, or it arose from a collegium 
of residents formed for social or religious purposes. The 
development of political institutions seems to have been 
encouraged, for many of the imperial estates were incor- 
porated as municipal territoria. A good example of this 
may be seen in the inscription from Pogla which shows the 
two stages of its development 4 . 

Since the Romans were eager to extend the municipal 
system over the provinces as soon as possible, many of the 

1 Strabo, 12. 37. i. 

2 Ramsay, Cities and Bishopric 's, i, 102; Strabo, 12. 3. i; 12. 3437. 

3 Rostowzew, Gesch. d. fom. Kol. 276 jf. 

4 No. 122; cf. p. 32. 


new cities founded by them were given territory of vast 
extent. In the course of time many of the larger villages 
within the territorium were given municipal charters of 
their own. Tymanda may be cited as an example of this 
development, and Orcistus, which had once been a city 
before it was reduced to the status of a village under the 
jurisdiction of Nacoleia, was restored to its former status 
in the fourth century 1 . The process of development and 
decay may be traced in different parts of the empire at all 
periods. Ilium had degenerated into a sort of village- 
town (/cco/xoVoXi^) before it was restored by the emperors 2 . 
Strabo describes Chrysopolis as a village in his day 3 . 
Byzantium and Antioch were penalized by the emperors 
for political reasons and were deprived of civic rights for 
a time by being made villages of neighboring cities 4 . The 
large number of cities named Hierapolis shows how the 
temple-states were transformed into municipalities, and 
among the seats of Christian bishoprics such names as 
Chorio Myliadica, Agathe Come, Demulycaon, Panemo- 
teichus, Regepodandus, Chora Patrimonia, Ktema Maxi- 
mianopoleos, and Salton Toxus may serve to illustrate the 
development of cities out of villages, of which some were 
originally part of an imperial estate 5 . Constantine is 
credited with great activity in transforming villages into 
cities, and all emperors encouraged this policy in order to 
create a body of curiales who would be responsible for the 
collection of imperial taxes 6 . 

In distinguishing between a village and a city, ancient 
writers imply that the former possessed no political 
sovereignty, but it is evident that most villages had some 
form of organization whereby the members could legislate 

1 Nos. 151, 154. 2 Strabo, 13. 27. i. 

3 Strabo, 12. 42. 2; Cicero, adfam. 4. 5. 4. 

4 Herodian, 3. 6. 9. 

5 Ramsay, op. cit. i. 84^,; Kuhn, op. cit. 238-9, 289, 299, 301, 304, 
368; no. 122. 

6 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. \. 18; cf. nos. 151, 154. 

[ 24 3 


in social, religious, and administrative matters, however 
much their freedom in initiative and performance may 
have been restricted. Many communities copied their 
metropolis by adopting civic institutions, such as the 
ecclesia and gerousia. Sometimes a group of villages united 
in a KOIVQV for the celebration of festivals and games 1 . We 
find frequent records of honorary decrees passed by village- 
assemblies, and of public works undertaken at their ex- 
pense 2 . They had revenues under their control, some of 
which came from lands which they owned and could dis- 
pose of by sale 3 . They had advocates (e/c8i/cot) to defend 
their interests, and judges to administer the law 4 . Officials 
such as comarch, demarch, brabeutae, logistae, prytaneis, 
recorders (ai/ay/oa^eis), agoranomi, secretary, and ol 
y8a<rcXevo*T<? are found, and even the summa honoraria is 
sometimes exacted 5 . In Syrian villages mention is made 
of cruz/St/coi, TTLCTTOI, SUH/O?TCU, Trpovorjrcu, arpar^yot, 
and eVi/xeX7?Tai 6 . We cannot tell whether the officials in 
the villages were elected locally or were appointed by the 
municipal government. According to the Codes the 
government of villages and mansiones in the fourth century 
was entrusted to citizens as a municipal liturgy 7 . It is 
doubtful if this system was universal, since Syrian in- 
scriptions and the statements of Libanius imply that the 
village-officials were independent of the municipal govern- 

1 Diet. Dar. s.v. K-OHI^. 

2 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 692, 1397; 4, 756, 1367; Ramsay, op. cit. no. 498. 
Juristic personality recognized by law, cf. Dig. 3. 4. i ; 30. I. 73 ; 47. 22. 4; 

Cod. J. 2. 59. 2. 

3 Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1387, 1607; Lebas-Waddington, 2556; Ditt. 
Or. Gr. 488. 4 No. 113. 

5 Cf. indices to Lebas-Waddington, Cagnat, IGRR, and 7G. The como- 
grammateus of Judaean villages shows the persistence of Ptolemaic in- 
fluence. In Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1371 ot /ScuriAtuWrcs imply the priest- 
kings of a temple-state. For the summa honoraria, cf. no. i 50 and Journ. 
Rom. Studies, 8 (1918), 26 /. 

6 Lebas-Waddington, 2127, 2130, 2240, 2399, 2547, 2556; Prentice, 
Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. 43 (1912), 113^. 

7 Cod. Th. 12. i. 21 (335); Cod. J. 10. 72. 2. 


ment 1 . It is evident that, in the disorder which prevailed 
during the third and fourth centuries, villages distant 
from the metropolis and unprotected by it had either 
fortified themselves and become semi-independent, or had 
placed themselves under the protection of some powerful 
noble, to whom they gave their full allegiance. The 
development of this type of patronage was an important 
cause of the decline of municipal institutions, since great 
stretches of territory passed out of the control of the cities, 
especially when brigandage and war were factors of every- 
day life. In the Byzantine empire the spread of indepen- 
dent village-communities was a characteristic feature of 
the revival of oriental influences and the decay of Hellen- 
ism, although their development was also due in large 
measure to the peculiar political and economic conditions 
of the age 2 . 

The relation of the village to the metropolis in financial 
matters cannot be traced in detail, since few documents 
throw light on the subject. The revenues of the city were 
chiefly derived from the territorium^ and the villagers were, 
in effect, regarded as lessees in perpetuity of the lands 
which they worked. The rental which they paid not only 
contributed to the support of the municipality, but also 
helped to make up the quota of imperial tribute. Other 
requisitions, such as the head and house tax, were levied 3 . 
Villagers, drafted for the settlement of the emporium at 
Pizus, were granted exemption from the quota of grain 
usually demanded from the villages, from the tax for the 
support of the burgarii or border police, and from garrison 
duty. No levies could be imposed upon them for beasts 
of burden required for the public post 4 . The recruiting 
tax (aurum tironicum) was levied on villages as well as on 
towns in the third century, but we cannot determine 

1 Libanius, De patrociniis. 

2 Ramsay, Tekmorian Guest Friends, 306 Jf. 

8 Cicero, adfam. 3. 8. 5; Cod. Th. n. 24. 6. 
4 No. 131. 


whether the municipality collected it, or whether imperial 
agents enforced the payment 1 . Valens imposed the tax 
directly on the villages 2 . In Hierapolis the municipal 
police (TrapcK^uXa/ces), who were assigned to guard-duty in 
the country districts, were not allowed to make requisitions 
upon the villagers except for certain specified require- 
ments 3 . It would seem that every imperial tax and liturgy 
imposed upon the municipality was passed on to the de- 
pendent communities, while a few more were added by the 
civic authorities as a special act of grace. The plaint that 
every curialis was a tyrant was probably not unjustified. 
Above all, the imperial requisitions for service in the 
public post were applied directly to the villages. The 
drafting of their cattle for angary was particularly burden- 
some on farmers. Frequent complaints from villages on 
imperial estates happen to be preserved, since they pre- 
sented their wrongs to the emperor direct and were able 
to secure some relief, but the municipal territoria must 
have suffered far more from the exactions of troops and 
imperial officials 4 . Since the cities were unable to protect 
the country districts, the villagers were forced to turn for 
help to the powerful proprietors in their vicinity, and 
where this protection could not be secured, their im- 
poverishment was only a question of time. 

In Egypt the Ptolemaic system was perpetuated for the 
first two centuries of Roman rule. The country was organ- 
ized in nomes composed of village-communities, each 
with a metropolis which, by courtesy, was often called a 
770X19. The village is usually styled KCO/UIT;, but such terms 
as eVoi/aa, eVoi/dW, ^wpioi/, and 707709 are also found 5 . 
The chief official (tfoj/xoypa/x/xarcus) was an agent of the 

1 No. 150; Journ. Rom. Studies, 8 (1918), 26 ff. 

2 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 4. 34. 3 No. 117. 

4 Nos. 113, 139, 141-144, 152. 

5 MusSe Belge y 10 (1906), 38jf., i6off.\ Engers, De Aegyptiarum 
administrationc quails fucrit aetatc Lagidarum; Wilcken, Grundzuge, c. i; 
Jouguet, Vic munic. 202 ff. 


imperial government, and sometimes combined two or 
more villages under his jurisdiction 1 . Police duties were 
under the supervision of the archephodus and phylaces of 
various kinds 2 . The office of epistates seems to have dis- 
appeared soon after the Roman occupation 3 . The board or 
council of elders (Trpeorfivrepoi) acted with the secretary 
as the governing body. In this capacity the councillors 
had no initiative of their own, but served merely as agents 
of the imperial government. Their responsibility was 
fixed by law, and the proper performance of their duties 
was guaranteed by sureties 4 . Each member of the board 
had to possess a certain standard of wealth which varied 
according to the importance of the village 5 . Nominations 
to office were made by the secretary and elders, sometimes 
jointly, sometimes separately. The appointments were 
made by the epistrategus^. The larger villages were some- 
times divided into wards, each of which had officials of its 

The religious and administrative centre of each nome 
was called a metropolis, and its organization differed from 
the villages but slightly. The council of elders was re- 
placed by a council of magistrates (KOIVOV ruv apxovTwv) 
as a concession to the Greek element which had settled 
in the community. The magistracies have been classified 
in three grades as follows: (i) gymnasiarch, (2) exegete, 
cosmete, eutheniarch, (3) archiereus, agoranomus 7 . The 
hypomnematographus rarely appears in the records, and his 
official rank is a matter of dispute 8 . Some of these offices 
were shared by several persons. There were at least six, 
and probably twelve, gymnasiarchs, but the variation in 

1 BGU. 91, 163; P. Fay. 40; P. Ft. 8; Jouguet, op. cit. 269^. 

2 Jouguet, op. cit. 261 ff. 

3 Oertel, Die Liturgie, 385; Jouguet, op. cit. 259. 

4 Jouguet, op. cit. 231; nos. 172, 182, 187, 196. 

5 Jouguet, op. cit. 2I9/.; Wilcken, Gr. Ostraka, 506^.; P. Giess. 58. 

6 Jouguet, op. cit. 222 ff. 

1 Preisigke, Stadtisches Beamtenwesen im romischen Agypten, 30 ff.* 
Jouguet, op. cit. zyzff. 8 P. Oxy. 14.12. 


numbers was regulated by the size of the community and 
its prosperity at different periods. There were two annual 
secretaries who acted as imperial agents 1 . They drew up 
the list of candidates for the manifold liturgies, probably 
in consultation with the board of magistrates. They also 
nominated their successors in office. The method of ap- 
pointment to magistracies cannot be definitely determined 
for all periods. As a general rule, however, the outgoing 
officials nominated their successors 2 . 

At the beginning of the third century Severus intro- 
duced several reforms in the administration of Egypt. A 
senate was constituted in each metropolis of the nomes. In 
form each of these towns became a municipality, and its 
later history need not concern us in this study. The 
villages of the nome, however, were not included in the 
territortum of the city at first. They continued to be ad- 
ministered by the state, although the nomarch was 
appointed by the municipal senate which acted merely 
as an agent of the imperial government in the nome 3 . 
The villages were also placed under a different adminis- 
tration, for the comogrammateus and the elders disappear 
from the records before the middle of the century 4 . They 
were replaced by comarchs who seem to have been 
associated with other officials in a council 5 . The comarchs 
nominated the sitologi, ephorus, quadrarius, and other local 
officials, and were responsible for the proper discharge 
of the duties to which the nominees were assigned. In 
the fourth century the nome was divided into pagi, which 
were now included in the territory of the city and under its 
jurisdiction 6 . 

The Egyptian village was originally a part of the estate 

1 Jouguet, op. cit. 291. 2 No. 181. 

3 Wilcken, Gr. Ostraka, 625; Jouguet, op. cit. 387, 390; cf. however, 
no. 200. 

4 Jouguet, op. cit. 2I4/. 5 Ibid. 393. 

6 Gelzer, Studien zur byzantinischen Ferwaltung Agyptcns, 57 ff.\ 
cf. however, Jouguet, op. cit. 397. 

[ 29 ] 


of the emperor, and it was organized and exploited solely 
in the interest of thefacus. Here the liturgy was developed 
in its most oppressive form 1 , and here the peasant was 
first bound to the soil. The development of municipal 
government in the third century, which we have described 
elsewhere, was powerfully influenced by the methods of 
administration which prevailed in the village-communities 
in Egypt. 

1 We have omitted a discussion of the Egyptian liturgy here. Cf. pp. 
99^. and especially the comprehensive work by Oertel, Die Liturgie. 



"A HE Greek cities in Asia, under the Diadochi, were 
allowed the right of ownership of land within their 
own territoria^ but, unless especially exempted, they 
were required to pay to the king a tax on property under 
their jurisdiction 1 . The remainder of the royal dominions 
consisted of crown-lands, which could either be leased or 
worked by royal agents with slave or free labor, or by 
tenants who paid a tithe of their produce to the king. 
These tenants held their leaseholds in hereditary suc- 
cession, and, in case the land was sold, they passed with 
the property into the possession of the new owner. They 
were grouped in villages (/caroi/acu, Kai/xai, or ^copia), 
where they enjoyed a limited measure of political activity. 
The royal estates were frequently reduced in extent by 
the foundation of military colonies, by the grant of civic 
status to villages, by sale, or by gift 2 . When the king 
transferred his right of possession to another, the land was 
usually included within the territory of the city in which 
the new owner resided. Hereditary tenants, therefore, 
were not peculiar to the royal possessions, but were often 
found on the lands belonging to the cities, or on private 
estates within their bounds. Such was the system of land 
tenure which the Romans found in Asia, and it is apparent 
that they adopted it with slight change. The crown-lands 
became the ager publicus of Rome and the cities retained 
possession of their territory, for which they paid rental in 
the form of an annual tribute to Rome. The Roman 

1 The history of land tenure on the royal and imperial estates of Asia is 
summed up by Rostowzew, Gcsch. d. rom. KoL 22<)ff. Cf. R.E. s.v. 

2 Rostowzew, op. tit. 248^. Cf. Buckler and Robinson, AJA. 16 
(1912), ir ff. 

[ 31 ] 


governors followed the policy of the Hellenistic kings in 
extending the municipal system at the expense of the 
public lands as well as of the temple-states. This move- 
ment was doubtless favored by the publicani since it 
simplified the problem of tax-gathering and facilitated 
the collection of loans 1 . 

Under the empire, the private estates of the emperor 
and the ager publicus came ultimately under the same 
administration. The imperial possessions were augmented 
by confiscation, fines, and bequests. As the kingdoms of 
client princes came into the empire, many of the royal 
estates were added to those of the emperor, while others 
were devoted to the foundation of cities. Fortunately, the 
tendency to over-expansion in the imperial estates was 
counterbalanced by the policy of extending the municipal 
system as widely as possible. The inscription from Pogla 
shows the transition from a village on one of the estates 
to municipal rank, and the names of the early Christian 
bishoprics indicate that many of them had once been 
imperial property 2 . 

Little is known of the actual methods of administration 
of the Asiatic imperial estates. We have, however, traced 
elsewhere the details of the western organization, and, 
since the latter was probably borrowed from the East, we 
refer the reader to the description of the western saltus*. 
The tenants were largely of the class of hereditary serfs, 
although we also find records of citizens from the muni- 
cipalities who held imperial leaseholds 4 . The position of 
imperial tenants was probably more favorable than that of 
landowners in the towns since the former were assured of 
imperial protection, and were free from the oppressive 
municipal liturgies. With the development of imperial 
liturgies, however, the inhabitants of the villages on the 

1 Rostowzew, op. cit. 277 ff.\ cf. no. 14. 

2 No. 122; cf. p. 23. 3 Cf. pp. 

4 Ramsay, The Tekmorian Guest Friends, 361 ff. Cf. no. 142. 

[ 32 ] 


estates of the emperor were subjected to these charges, 
and in the third century we have several records of their 
complaints against the exactions of soldiers and officials 1 . 

When a municipal charter was granted to a village on 
an imperial estate, some change must have been made in 
the status of the residents. The free tenants would naturally 
form the nucleus of the senate, and the imperial agents 
may have become the first magistrates of the new town. 
Of the hereditary tenants, some continued to hold the 
position of serfs on the public lands of the city, but the 
more wealthy were undoubtedly raised to the rank of free 
citizens in order to create a sufficient number of curiales 
who would be responsible for the various obligations of 
the municipality. Unfortunately, no evidence has been 
preserved which enables us to determine definitely these 
points, but inscriptions from Asiatic towns sometimes 
reveal that the population was divided into classes of 
different status 2 . The lower grades may represent the 
original stock or the class of hereditary serfs. 

In order to understand fully the Roman administration 
of Egypt, it is necessary to describe briefly the system of 
land tenure under the Ptolemies 3 . With the exception of 
the few cities which were founded by them, the Nile 
valley was the personal property of the sovereign. The 
crown lands (yrj /2ao-tXiK7/) were under the direct adminis- 
tration of the royal bureaus. The remainder was called y?) 
Iv cu^eVei or "surrendered" land. 

The "surrendered" land may be subdivided as sacred 
(ie/oa), military (K\7)pov^iKTJ)^ and private (1810*777x05). 
Royal agents administered the sacred assignments in the 
interests of the temples 4 . The cleruchic land was assigned 
to the soldiers and to certain members of the bureaucracy. 

1 Nos. 139, 141-144. 

2 Liebenam, S/. Verw. 2i6ff.\ no. 122. 

3 Cf. Rostowzew, op. ctt. ijf.; Wilcken, Grundziige, 2joff.\ Bell, 
Journal of Egyptian ArcAaeoiogy, 4 (1917), %6ff. 

4 Wilcken, op. cit. 278 /. 

AMA [ 33 ] 3 


The lessees, who were usually Greeks, were under obliga- 
tion to render military service when called upon, and to 
pay a small ground rent. In making these grants the 
Ptolemies had a double purpose in view. The Greek 
soldiers were given a stake in their new home, and the 
cultivated area of the Nile valley was extended, for the 
military leases usually covered lands technically classified 
as sterile (vnoXoyov, ytpcros)) and the lessee was under 
obligation to cultivate his holdings. The lease could be 
cancelled at the will of the king, but the lessee had the 
right to sublet his property, and it could pass to his heirs 
as a virtual inheritance 1 . Land "surrendered" to private 
individuals (yrj ISioKTrjTos) consisted of two main classes: 
(i) Vineyards and orchards called KT-r^tara. These hold- 
ings are generally supposed to represent property privately 
owned in Persian times, or new land brought under 
cultivation by the owner. (2) Lands held on hereditary 
leasehold which could be bought, sold, mortgaged, or 
bequeathed with the same freedom as if held in full 
private ownership. The " surrendered " land was taxed 
with an annual rental to the crown, and if the tenant fell 
into arrears in his rental, his lease was liable to confisca- 
tion 2 . There was also another class which might properly 
be included under private ownership: favorites of the king 
were often given grants (yrj eV Sw/oea), on which no rental 
was imposed. 

The greater part of Egypt and the most fertile soil was 
crown land (yrj /SacriXtfcrj), which was worked by royal 
tenants (yecopyol /3acriA.ucoi). The leases ran for a term of 
years (usually five), and were granted to the highest bidder 
at public auction. The lessees were under oath not to leave 
their holdings between seed-time and harvest. In this 
arrangement we may find the beginning of the system 
which was later to bind the tenants to the soil as were the 
royal serfs of Asia. While the interests of his tenants were 

1 Wilcken, op. cit. 280^. 2 Op. dt. 

[ 34 ] 


safeguarded by the king, they were subjected to unusual 
burdens in times of economic stress, and were often com- 
pelled to take over leases against their will. In some cases 
they even resorted to flight to escape their obligations 1 . 

Under Roman rule the " surrendered'' land dis- 
appeared as a separate class, and in its place we find land 
which was held in complete private possession (yrj tSuorifci?, 
yrj KaroiKLKrj) yrj K\.rjpovx^^ an< ^ oucruu). The public 
lands fell into two great categories : the Xoyo? Sioifo/crecos 
(including the yrj ySacrtXt/c^, yrj S^/xocrta, 777 iepd, and 
probably the yrj TrpoordSou), and the Xoyos ovcriafcds. The 
royal lands were leased under the same conditions as 
before. The "public" lands (yjj S^ocria) cannot be dis- 
tinguished from the royal lands except in details of ad- 
ministration 2 . The term STJ/LLO'CTIOC ycvpyoi came to be 
applied to tenants on both crown and public lands. 
The sacred lands were very materially diminished by the 
Romans 3 . The confiscated properties were added to the 
imperial possessions, while the remainder was administered 
by imperial agents in the interest of the temples. In the 
third century the temples seem to have been brought under 
the control of the local senate in each metropolis, and the 
sacred lands gradually passed into the municipal territo- 
rium. The "revenue" lands (yrj TrpocroSov) appear as a 
new class under Roman rule, and their characteristics 
cannot be clearly determined. Rostowzew believes that 
they represent sequestered property which remained in 
the hands of the original owner until the obligations to the 
state were discharged 4 . Meanwhile the land formed a 
special class, and the revenue went to a special division 
of the imperial bureaus. 

The yrj ov&iaKrj consisted largely of estates which had 
once been held by members of the imperial family, 
favorites, or friends in the senatorial and equestrian order, 

1 Wilcken, of. dt. ^^^ff. * Op. cit. 288 ff. 3 Op. dt. 300^. 
4 Rostowzew, op. dt. i$$ff. Cf. Wilcken, op. dt. 2<)(>ff. 

[ 35 ] 3- 


and had probably been free of any tax or rental. In the 
course of the first century these estates came into the 
possession of the emperors, and constituted a curious sort 
of imperial patrimony within Egypt, which as a whole 
was regarded as a personal possession of the crown 1 . 
While the yf) ovcriaKTJ was under the administration of a 
separate bureau (\oyos ovcria/cos), the tenants, known as 
yeco/oyot oucria/coi, seem to have received the same treat- 
ment as those on public property. The fjnor0a)Tal ovcrux/coi 
are also found as tenants, apparently with the same status 
as the yecopyot, although it is believed that their leases 
were for fixed periods and were assigned to the less valu- 
able land. Such leaseholds could be sublet, but the 
sublessees were directly responsible to the imperial agents 
from whom also they received the right of taking over the 

The administration of Egypt as an imperial domain was 
under the control of a prefect assisted by an elaborate 
bureaucracy 2 . Apart from the Greek cities, the whole Nile 
valley was divided into three administrative districts over 
each of which an epistrategus exercised authority as the 
deputy of the prefect. These districts were again divided 
into nomes under the supervision of&strategus. The nomes 
were divided into toparchies in which were the villages. 
The administrative centre of each nome was the metropolis. 
The organization of the village-communities and the 
metropolis has been described elsewhere 3 . Here we need 
only recall the fact that the officials of the villages acted 
as agents of the bureaucracy rather than as servants of the 
community. Corporate liability was early recognized and 
enforced 4 . The community as a whole was liable for the 
default of any of its members, and in some cases the village 
was compelled to take over leaseholds which had been 
vacated, or for which no tenant had bidden at the official 

1 Rostowzew, op. cit. n^ff. 2 Wilcken, op. cit. *%ff. 

3 Cf. pp. 2J ff. 4 Wilcken, Chrestomathic, 345 

[ 36 ] 


One of the most noteworthy features of the Roman 
administration of Egypt was the growth of private owner- 
ship of land. The descendants of the soldiers of the 
Ptolemies were no longer subject to military service and 
the cleruchic land, in so far as it had not been confiscated 
by Augustus, passed into the private possession of the 
former occupants 1 . The catoecic lands were also treated 
in the same way. Both paid an annual tax to the bureaus. 
Thus there was created a large class of landowners with 
small holdings. The development of the liturgical system 
probably had decisive influence in the new policy. Litur- 
gies could not be imposed upon a citizen unless he owned 
property which could be held as surety for the proper 
discharge of his obligations, and the Romans doubtless 
found that tenants could evade their responsibilities more 
easily than owners. Private ownership must have been 
common when the municipal organization was extended 
to the metropolis of each nome in A.D. 202. In the fourth 
century the yr^ ftacriXiKYJ and the yf) S^/tocria disappear 
from the records. These lands either became the property 
of private individuals who were given possession under an 
obligation to cultivate them, or they had been incorporated 
in the territory of the municipalities. 

As the economic pressure increased in Egypt, it became 
more and more difficult to find tenants for the imperial 
lands. Two solutions of the problem were attempted. 
Compulsory tenantry was adopted, which led to the 
development of serfdom. In some cases tenants were 
arbitrarily transferred to abandoned districts from profit- 
able holdings, in the hope that successful farmers might be 
able to reclaim the exhausted land 2 . The second device 
was the principle of adiectio(tTripo\rj). This was a form of 
compulsory leasehold, whereby lands, for which no tenants 
had applied, were arbitrarily assigned to private owners, or 
to tenants on the imperial estates, or even to the villages 

1 Bell, he. cit. Syff. 2 Wilcken, Grundziigt, 293 /. 

[ 37 ] 


as corporate communities 1 . As a rental was imposed, the 
unwilling lessee was obliged to cultivate the land in some 
fashion. In a few cases we find records of leases which 
specified "that the land was free from the obligation to 
cultivate royal or public lands/' and where this clause does 
not appear it is probable that the liability to adiectio was 
implied 2 . 

In a narrow sense, the history of Egypt under Roman 
rule may be viewed as a struggle for supremacy between 
two systems of administration ; the bureaucratic imperial 
estate versus the municipal organization. The victory 
rested, though only in name, with the latter, since the 
imperial estates were gradually merged in the municipal 
territorium, but in fact the city became a mere instrument 
in the hands of the bureaucracy and functioned solely as 
an agent of the imperial government. This development 
and its influence on the cities in other parts of the empire 
are subjects treated elsewhere 3 . The failure of the Romans 
to carry out the system of the Ptolemies is due to a variety 
of causes. Egypt was too remote from the capital, and 
the natives were exploited by the official class. The tribute 
imposed upon the country exhausted its resources. De- 
population and abandonment of the less fertile areas 
followed. Finally, the exaction of imperial requisitions 
and the development of the liturgical system resulted in 
the restraint of personal liberty and reduced the population 
to political and economic serfdom 4 . 

1 Wilcken, op. cit. 292; Zulueta, de patrociniis vicorum, 43. 

2 Wilcken, Ckrestomathie, 355-359. 

3 Cf. pp. i^ff. 

4 For the development of the principle of origo in Egypt, cf. nos. 168, 
175, 192, 193 and pp. 194, 217 ff. 



WE have tried to classify communities in the Roman 
empire according to their origin, character, and 
juridical relation to Rome or to other cities. It 
is convenient to group them also on the basis of their 
freedom from the payment of tribute, or their obligation to 
pay it. From 89 B.C. to the time of Diocletian Italy was 
free from this charge 1 , but from land outside Italy a 
rental in kind (decumae), or a fixed sum of money (stipen- 
dium or tributum) was expected. Exemption from this pay- 
ment could be had only as a privilege. We find, therefore, 
in the provinces two classes of communities, civitates 
stipendiariae and civitates immunes^ or, to use for the second 
class the term more commonly employed in antiquity, 
civitates liberae et immunes. The circumstances which often 
led Rome to grant freedom or exemption from taxation to 
a city are illustrated in the case of Utica which assisted 
Rome in the third Punic war 2 . For a similar reason Antony 
made Laodicea a civitas libera et immunis, because of the 
sturdy resistance which it had offered to Cassius in 
43 B.C. 3 Sometimes the fortunate city owed its privileges 
to the generosity of the Roman people, as Delphi did 4 , or 
to the favor of a Roman general, as in the case of Aphro- 
disias 5 . 

1 Marquardt, St. Verw. 2, 

2 Appian, Pun. 75, 135; cf. CIL. i, 200, 1. 75. 

3 Appian, B.C. 4. 62; 5. 7. 

4 Cf. Henze, De civitatibus liberis, 34. 

5 Cf. Henze, op. cit. 52 f. 

[ 39 ] 


The recognition of a community as a free city 1 usually 
carried along with it exemption from the payment of 
tribute, but under the republic the free cities were not 
always safe from the imposition of taxes at the hands of 
greedy governors or needy generals 2 , and under the early 
empire cities made "free" did not necessarily have even a 
technical claim to immunity from taxation 3 . However, in 
the great majority of cases in both periods it is probable 
that cities of this class enjoyed the privilege mentioned 4 , 
so that in a particular instance, when evidence to the con- 
trary is not available, it is wise to take it for granted that 
a free city was immunis. 

Freedom might be granted to a city by a treaty, in 
which case the city bore the title of a civitas foederata 5 , 
or in the second place it might come through a 
law, or through a decree of the senate. Cities of the 
latter sort were called civitates sine foedere liberae et im- 
munes. The rights of these two classes of communities 

1 It is important to notice that cities which are styled free by the ancient 
historians are sometimes not technically civitates liberae. Thus, for instance, 
Flamininus in 196 B.C. declared (cf. Livy, 33. 32. 5-6) the Corinthians 
and certain other peoples free, because they were released from the domina- 
tion of Philip, but this action did not make them civitates liberae (cf. Henze, 
op. cit. 2). The term aurovo/xia, used in the East, must also be distin- 
guished from libertas. It indicates the granting to a city of the privilege suis 
legibus uti (cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 724), but these laws may be adminis- 
tered under the supervision of Roman magistrates. 

2 Cf. Marquardt, St. Ferw. i, 72, n. i; Henze, op. cit. 4. 

8 This seems to have been true, for instance, of Magnesia and Sipylum, 
Chios and Apollonidea (cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 683, n. 4; 682, n. 3). 

4 The fact that Pliny in his lists characterizes only a few free cities as 
civitates immunes does not prove that many others were not free from the 
payment of tribute (cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 683, n. 4). 

5 This term is used in its technical sense only once in the Latin inscrip- 
tions, but it is frequent in literature; cf. Diz. Ep. 2, 255 /. To the list of 
civitates foederatae given by Marquardt (St. Ferw. i, 75/.) Kabbadias 
has recently added Troezen (cf. IG. iv, 791), Thurreium of Acarnania 
(cf. IG. ix, 483), and Epidaurus (cf. 'E<. 'Ap X - 1918, i66Jf.). The 
term socii was a purely honorary title, and did not imply a treaty nor 
the possession of special rights; cf. Henze, op. cit. 6. 

[ 40 ] 


were essentially the same, but the privileges of a federated 
city were based upon a treaty, and, therefore, irrevocable *, 
whereas a law or a decree of the senate, upon which the 
claims of cities of the second class were based, could be 
repealed at the will of the Roman people or senate 2 . 
Reference is frequently made to the treaties into which 
Rome had entered with other cities, but none of the treaties 
has been preserved in its entirety 3 . Almost all of them, 
so far as we can determine their dates, belong to the period 
of the republic 4 . Evidently, as time went on, Rome be- 
came less generous than she had been in earlier days in 
granting rights in perpetuity. Her early acts of generosity 
had come out of a grateful recognition of services rendered 
in times of great peril. Then too these favors granted to 
her supporters and her stern treatment of hostile cities 
would serve to show in future wars what friend and foe 

1 Occasionally the Romans did not observe the sanctity of these treaties. 
Suetonius writes {Aug. 47): urbium quasdam, foederatas sed ad exitium 
licentia praecipites, libertate privavit. From Cassius Dio, 54. 7. 6, Cyzicus, 
Tyre, and Sidon would seem to be the cities concerned. Rhodes and Malaca 
were at one time federated cities. Later they lost this status. Perhaps they 
were thought to have denounced the treaty with Rome, when they took sides 
against her. 

2 An interesting commentary on the uncertain position of the civitates 
sine foe dere seems to be furnished by the statement of Suetonius concerning 
the exceptional good fortune of the people of Ilium. Of them he says: 
Iliensibus quasi Romanae gentis auctoribus, tributa in perpetuum remisit 
(Claud. 25). 

3 Such references may be seen in Livy, 38. 8. 10 and Tac. Ann. 2. 53. 
For fragments of the treaty with Astypalaea, cf. Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 
p. 42, no. 21 and Rhein. Mus. 44 (1889), 446. 

4 E.g. the treaty with Massilia is perhaps as early as 389 B.C. {cf. Justin, 
43. 5. 10); that with the Vocontii is known in the first century B.C. (CIL. 
xn, p. 1 60); the treaties with Tauromenium and Neaetum are mentioned 
by Cicero (in Verr. 2. 160; 3. 13 and ibid. 5. 56; 5. 133); the treaty with 
Rhodes grew out of the war with Perseus (Livy, 45. 25. 7), and the treaty 
with Astypalaea belongs to the year 104 B.C. The treaty with Aphrodisias 
(cf. no. 29) is also of the republican period. Perhaps an example of a treaty, 
made under the empire, conferring the rights of a free city, exists in the case 
of Tyrus (Henze, op. cit. 76). 

[ 41 ] 


might expect from her. With the world at her feet, she 
had no more crises to face. 

The lex Antonia de Termessibus of 71 B.C. gives us a 
typical specimen of a plebiscite establishing a free city, 
and there is a decree of the senate with the same object in 
view in the case of Stratonicea 1 . The initiative in granting 
this privilege was frequently taken by some successful 
general or by the emperor 2 . 

The rights of free cities, whether guaranteed by a treaty 
with Rome or granted in a law or in a decree of the senate, 
were liable to cancellation or abridgment on the ground 
that the cities had broken faith with Rome or had not been 
loyal to her. On the other hand, a city sometimes regained 
its lost rights, or the privileges of a free city were con- 
ferred on a community which previously had lacked them. 
Thus Tyre was free under the republic, lost its freedom 
under Augustus 3 , but regained it later 4 . Mitylene had the 
right of receiving exiles in Cicero's time 5 and was, there- 
fore, probably free, lost its privileges, apparently in the 
first Mithradatic war 6 , but received them later again at 
the hands of Pompey 7 . The people of Locri Ozolae seem 
to have been immunes at the beginning of the reign of 
Augustus, but to have been reduced to the position of 
attributi of Patrae before the close of it 8 . Altogether in the 
Roman world there were two hundred or more cities 
which permanently or temporarily bore the title of "free 
cities 9 /' Of these, Africa and Asia, with approximately 

1 The Lex Antonia is no. 19 in this book. The decree in the case of 
Stratonicea is no. 17. An inscription found in the ruins of Tabae (no. 16) 
is a senatus consultum, apparently conferring the rights of civitates liberae 
on a group of cities; cf. Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d'Asie, l%ff. 

2 Cf. Tac. Ann. 12. 61 and Kuhn, Die stddt. u. burgerl. Ferfassung d. 
rom. Reichs, 2, 20 f. 

3 Cf. Marquardt, <SV. Verw. i, 395, n. 2. 

4 Cf. Dig. 50. 15. i. 

6 Cf. Cic. Brut. 250; ad Att. 5. n. 6. 

6 Cf. Suet. lul. 2. 7 Cf. Veil. 2. 18. 

8 Cf. Henze, op. clt. 34. fl Cf. Henze, op. tit. 

c 42 ] 


thirty-nine and thirty-five respectively, could boast the 
largest number 1 . 

The nature of the rights and privileges which a free 
city enjoyed may be best inferred from the lex Antonia de 
Termessibus. The first privilege mentioned in this docu- 
ment is the right uti suis legibus*. It gave Termessus the 
right to govern under its own laws, to repeal and amend 
them, and to pass new ones, subject only to the limita- 
tion, quod advorsus hanc legem nonfiat*. It implied also the 
administration of justice by local courts. Next in order in 
the law is the right to hold land free from the land tax 4 . 
This freedom from taxation is set forth more fully in the 
case of certain free cities in Africa 5 . Inasmuch as the 
people of Termessus are made masters of their own terri- 
tory by this concession, the Roman governor may not 
exercise authority in it, and it is thought of as lying outside 
of his province 6 . He may not even enter the city in his 
official capacity 7 . The two rights which have just been 
mentioned are the most fundamental ones, and the auto- 
nomy of the free city was based primarily on them. 

The third right guaranteed in the lex Antonia is freedom 

1 For the free cities of Asia, cf. Branch's, R.E. 2, 1540-1543. 

2 Cf. no. 19, Col. i, 11. 8-9. For similar expressions, cf. Livy's statement 
(38. 39. 12) concerning the Phocaeans: ut legibus antiquis uterentur per- 
missum, and Trajan's remark concerning Amisus (Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 92): 
Amisenorum civitas libera et foederata beneficio indulgentiae tuae legibus 
suis utitur. 

3 No. 19, Col. i, 11. lo-n. 4 Ibid. Col. i, 11. 12-35. 

5 Cf. lex agraria (= CIL. i, 200), 11. 85 jf. 

6 This is the significance of the account which Suetonius gives (lul. 25) 
of Caesar's arrangements in Gaul : omnem Galliam, . . . praeter socias ac 
bene meritas civitates, in provinciae formam redegit eique |cccc| in singu- 
los annos stipendii nomine imposuit; cf. Suet. Vesp. 8: Achaiam, Lyciam, 
Rhodum, Byzantium, Samum libertate adempta. . .in provinciarum for- 
mam redegit. 

7 Cf. Mommsen, St. R. i, 378, n. i; 3, 689. When we find Roman 
governors holding court in certain free cities in later times (cf. op. cit. 3, 
689, n. 4) we may surmise that permission had been granted by the cities 
themselves, whose trade would profit by the influx of litigants, witnesses, 
and officials; cf. the case of Apamea in Dio Chrys. 35. 14. 

[ 43 ] 


from the establishment of winter quarters for Roman troops 
in Termessus 1 . This provision does not prevent Roman 
soldiers from passing through the city or being billeted 
temporarily in it, and by special authorization of the 
Roman senate troops may be quartered in Termessus 2 . 
In the same paragraph the right of Roman officials to 
requisition supplies in accordance with the limitations of 
the unknown Porcian law is recognized 3 . 

The next paragraph in the law seems to reestablish 
certain preexisting rights of the people of Termessus in 
their relations with the Romans 4 . The local courts could 
take cognizance even of cases where Roman citizens were 
concerned, but probably in such cases certain restrictions 
were put on the exercise of authority by the local magis- 
trate 5 . 

The last article recognizes the right of Termessus to 
levy inland and maritime customs dues 6 . This privilege 
was not restricted to civitates liberae. Indeed the one ex- 
tant specimen of a table setting forth port dues or octroi 
is from Palmyra, a city which was not free 7 . In the matter 
of allowing the imposition of customs dues by local 
authorities the policy of the central government changed 
from one period to another. Under later emperors, like 
Alexander Severus and Julian, Rome was more liberal 
than she had been under Tiberius 8 . This change in policy 

1 No. 19, Col. ii, 11. 6-13. 2 Ibid. Col. ii, 11. 11-13. 

3 Cf. G. Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani, 269. 

4 No. 19, Col. n, 11. 18-30. 

5 Cf. Mommsen, <$/. R. 3, 701-706. 

6 No. 19, Col. n, 11. 31-37. 

7 Cf. Dessau in Hermes, 19 (1884), 486-533. The Palmyra tariff is 
clearly municipal; cf. ibid. 527 ff.\ Rostowzew, Geschichte d. Staatspacht, 
405; Hirschfeld, 81, n. i; cf. also commentary on no. 61 and p. 140, 
n. 2. The dues collected at Zarai (cf. CIL. vni, 4508) were probably 
imperial; cf. Cagnat, Les impots indirect* chez. les Romains, 1 16; Rostowzew, 
op. cit. 403. For the case of Koptos in Egypt, cf. Dittenberger, Or. Gr. 674; 
Rom. Mitth. 1897, 75^.; Wilcken, Ostraka, i, 347/1 

8 Liebenam, St. Ferw. 22 f. 

[ 44 ] 


may be due to the general demoralization of civic finance. 
In Termessus the produce belonging to Roman tax far- 
mers was exempt from the payment of duty 1 . In other 
cases Roman citizens and even Latins were not required 
to pay local portoria 2 . Three considerations probably in- 
fluenced the central government to limit and, in some 
cases, to cancel the local right to levy customs duties: 
(i) the desire to give preferential treatment to Roman 
citizens, and to bring the trade of the world into the hands 
of Rome; (2) the importance of lowering the cost of mer- 
chandise brought to Italy, and (3) the establishment of an 
imperial tariff for revenue 3 . 

Two privileges which were frequently enjoyed by free 
cities are not mentioned in the lex Antonia, viz. the right 
of receiving exiles and the right of coinage, although it 
may be noted in passing that the right of a city in the Orient 
to coin money is not evidence that it was a free city. Up 
to the time of the first Punic war the federated cities re- 
tained their unrestricted right of coinage, although their 
coins were not legal tender in Rome 4 . However, by the 
close of the republican period, or in the early empire, with 
few exceptions, these cities were allowed to issue small 
coins only, and even the exercise of this privilege was 
subject to the consent and the control of the central 
government 5 . By these means Roman coins were made 
the medium of circulation throughout the world, trade was 
fostered, and a long step was taken toward making Rome 

1 No. 19, Col. ii, 11. 34-37. 

2 Cf. Livy's statement (38. 44) of the concession to the people of Am- 
bracia: portoria, quae vellent, terra marique caperent, dum eorum immunes 
Romani ac socii nominis Latini essent. 

3 The way in which the Roman world was divided into tariff districts 
with stations for the collection of imperial customs in each may be seen in 
Cagnat, op. cit. 19-82. By the side of this imperial system non-imperial 
tariff arrangements could not be expected to survive in many cases. 

4 Cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 710. 

6 Mommsen, <SV. R. 3, 7 1 3, n. i, notes on a coin of the free city of Cercina 
in Africa the phrase permissu L. Volusi procos. 

[ 45 ] 


the banking and commercial centre of the world. In- 
cidentally nothing illustrates better than the history of 
local coinage Rome's policy, as time went on, of restricting 
more and more the traditional rights of the free cities. 

The foreign relations of a free city were determined by 
Rome. Even the federated cities suffered this limitation 
of complete sovereignty. The treaty with them was a 
foedus iniquum. Perhaps the nearest approach to the ex- 
ercise of international rights which they had, lay in the 
privilege of receiving exiles a privilege of doubtful value 
to them. This right was enjoyed by free cities of both 
classes 1 . 

While the privileges mentioned above were those com- 
monly granted to free cities, the fact should be borne in 
mind that Rome's policy changed from period to period, 
that she was more generous to one city than to another, 
and that in the case of some cities libertas may have been 
little more than an honorary distinction. 

The system of taxation which the Romans followed in 
their provinces was first adopted in Sicily, and it is clearly 
set forth by Cicero in one of his Verrine orations 2 . In 
this passage he remarks: 

Between Sicily and the other provinces there is this difference 
in the matter of the land tax, that on the others a fixed contribution, 
called a stipendium^ is levied, representing the fruits of victory or a 
punishment for engaging in war with us. This plan is followed 
in the Spains and with many districts of the Carthaginians. Or the 
contract system under the censors has been adopted, as it was in 
Asia under the Sempronian law. As for the cities of Sicily we 
accepted jurisdiction over them with the proviso that they should 
retain the same legal status (eodem lure) which they had before, 
and should submit to the Roman people on the terms (eadem con- 

1 There is no evidence that Smyrna, whither Q. Caepio went into exile 
(cf, Cic. pro Balbo, 28), or Patrae, where the exile C. Maenius Gemellus 
stayed (cf. Cic. ad fam. 13. 19. 2), were federated cities. 

2 3- 12-1 

[ 46 ] 


dicione) on which they had submitted to their own rulers. A very 
few of these cities were brought under our rule by our ancestors 
by force of arms, and, although their territory was made ager 
publicus populi Romani^ still it has been given back to them. There 
are two federated (foederatae) cities, viz. Messana and Tauro- 
menium 1 , where it is not our practice to collect tithes. Then there 
are five cities sine foedere immunes ac liberae^ Centuripae, Halaesa, 
Segesta, Halicyae, and Panormus. Outside of these, all the land 
of the cities of Sicily is subject to tithes, and was so before the 
Roman people ruled it, in accordance with the wish and under the 
institutions of the Sicilians themselves. 

In this statement Cicero tells us plainly that when the 
Romans acquired Sicily they took over the system of 
taxation which the Syracusans and Carthaginians had em- 
ployed before them, the lex Hieronica, as he calls it else- 
where 2 . The system may be traced back to Persia through 
the monarchies of the East and the arrangements of 
Alexander 3 . The territory of Sicily falls into three main 
categories. Certain districts which had made a deter- 
mined resistance were converted into imperial domains 4 , 
a few were exempted from taxation, and all the rest of the 
island was subject to the payment of tribute. The tax-free 
cities are of two kinds, as we have already noticed, those 
whose privileges were guaranteed by a treaty, and those 
whose rights were granted in some other way. The third 
class of communities were the civitates stipendiariae. In 
Sicily there were sixty-five civitates^. Now eight of these 
were exempt from taxation, because to the two allied 
cities mentioned here Cicero elsewhere adds a third, 
Netum 6 . The land of very few (perpaucae\ perhaps of six 
cities, styled civitates censoriae, was declared ager publicus. 

1 In 5. 56 a third city, Netum, is added. 2 in Ferr. 2. 32. 

3 Cf. Rostowzcw, Gesc/i. d. rom. Kol. 229-240, and the illuminating 
treatment by Frank, Roman Imperialism^ 9399, 108, n. 17. 

4 Cf. PP- IS/- 5 Cf. Cic. in Ferr. 2. 133 and 137. 
6 in Verr. 5. 56. 

[ 47 ] 


Consequently, the rest of the cities, about fifty-one in 
number, were civitates stipendiariae. Exact figures for the 
other provinces are difficult to obtain, but in all of them 
the taxed communities far outnumbered those which were 
free from taxation by the central government. Thus, in 
the time of Pliny the Elder, in Baetica one hundred and 
twenty out of one hundred and seventy-five cities were 
tributary cities, in Tarraconensis, one hundred and thirty- 
five out of one hundred and seventy-nine, in Lusitania, 
thirty-five out of forty-six 1 . We do not find evidence that 
in all Asia more than thirty or thirty-five cities out of a 
total of about five hundred were free at any time 2 . 

It was the payment by these communities of taxes 3 , in 
Sicily in the form of tithes, which constituted the chief 
mark of difference between them and the free cities. The 
other essential feature in their status which distinguished 
them from the free cities was the fact that each of them 
belonged to the province, and its internal affairs were 
subject to the supervision and control of the governor of 
the province. 

Such rights as these cities had they received in the first 
instance through a lex provinciae y drawn up usually by the 
general who brought the district into subjection or by a 
senatorial commission 4 . Their status in certain matters 
was still further defined by the successive edicts of em- 
perors and provincial governors and by occasional decrees 
of the senate concerning a particular city 5 . Under the 

1 Cf. Schulten, R.E. 8, 2037-8. 

2 Cf. Brandis, R.E. 2, 1 540-3 ; Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d'Asie, 114- 
121 ; Kuhn, Die stadt. u. biirgerl. Verfassung J. rom. Reichs, 2, 6. 

3 For a discussion of taxation in the provinces, see pp. 1 17 ff. 

4 For senatorial commissions in the second and first centuries B.C., cf. 
Willems, Le stnat de la rtpublique rom. 2, 507, n. 2. 

5 The large number of special measures in existence in the first century 
of our era, conferring certain privileges on provincial cities, is attested by 
Suetonius (Fesp. 8) : aerearumque tabularum tria milia quae simul con- 
flagraverant restituenda suscepit. . . instrumentum imperii pulcherrimum 
ac vetustissimum, quo continebantur . . .senatus consulta, plebiscita de 
societate et foedere ac privilegio . . . concessis. 

[ 48 ] 


republic the power to organize a newly acquired territory 
into a province rested with the senate, and it was necessary 
for this body to draw up the fundamental statutes of the 
province or to ratify the arrangements made by a Roman 
general 1 . None of the leges provinciarum has come down 
to us, but we have frequent references to them in ancient 
literature 2 , and from these references we can get a con- 
ception of the contents of the constitutions drawn up for 
provincial cities. Thus, under the lex Rupilia, the citizens 
of a given Sicilian community in dealing with one another 
enjoy the privilege of being subject to their own laws. In 
an action brought by a citizen of one Sicilian town 
against another, the Roman praetor chooses the jurors. In 
an action brought by a Roman against a Sicilian, the judge 
must be a Sicilian; in the reverse situation, the judge is a 
Roman 3 . The lex Pompeia^ among other matters, fixed 
certain conditions of eligibility to the local magistracies 
and senates in Pontus and Bithynia, and regulates admis- 
sion to local citizenship 4 . Outside the leges provinciarum , 
the leader or the commission which organized a province 
often drew up a special charter for a particular city. 
Rupilius, for instance, in 132 B.C. gave Heracleia in Sicily 
a charter, one of whose articles prescribed the method of 
choosing the members of the local senate 5 , and the 
charters granted to various cities in Bithynia and Pontus, 
perhaps by Pompey, seem to have differed from one 
another in some particulars 6 . Probably each city was 

1 Cf. Willems, op. cit. 2, 703-717. 

2 For the lex Rupilia which P. Rupilius drew up for Sicily in 132 B.C., 
after the Slave war, cf. Cic. in Ferr. 2. 32; 2. 38-40; 2. 90; 2. 125; 3. 40. 
For the lex Pompeia in Bithynia, cf. Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 79, 80, 112, 114, 
115; Strabo, 12. 3. i; Cass. Dio, 37. 20. 2; Livy, Ep. 102. For the lex 
Metelli in Crete, cf. Livy, Ep. 100, and for the lex Aemilia in Macedonia, 
Livy, 45. 32. For Pompey's general arrangements in the East, cf. Dru- 
mann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms, 4, 477 ff. 

3 Cf. Ck. in Ferr. 2. 32. 4 Cf. Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 79, 112. 

5 Cf. Cic. inVerr. 2. 125. 

6 Cf. Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 109: quo iure uti debeant Bithyniae vel 

AMA [ 49 ] 4 


allowed to preserve in large measure its traditional usages. 
These original grants were reaffirmed, extended, re- 
stricted, or cancelled in subsequent periods by the Roman 
senate, or by the emperor, and defined in the successive 
edicts of provincial governors. Two specimens of senatus 
consulta^ regulating in some respects the affairs of Teos 1 
and Thisbe 2 , are extant, but these decrees were adopted 
in 193 and 170 B.C. respectively, before Teos and Thisbe 
became parts of a Roman province. 

We may form a general conception of the part which 
the edict of the governor of a province played in building 
up the law of the land by looking at the summary which 
Cicero gives his friend Atticus of his Cilician edict 3 . This 
edict is an edictum tralaticium^ inasmuch as Cicero has 
taken over in large measure the edict of his predecessor 4 . 
He has, however, introduced some provisions from the 
' 'Asiatic edict " of Q. Mucius Scaevola. In the same way 
the edictum Siciliense for a given year was modelled on 

Ponticae civitates in iis pecuniis quae ex quaque causa rei publicae debe- 
buntur ex lege cuiusque animadvertendum est. 

1 CIG. 3045 == Viereck, op. cit. p. 2, no. 2. 

2 Cf. no. 5. 

3 Cf. Cic. ad Att. 6. i. i 5 : De Bibuli edicto nihil novi praeter illam ex- 
ceptionem, de qua tu ad me scripseras, "nimis gravi praeiudicio in ordinem 
nostrum." Egotamen habeo lo-o^wa/jLovcrav sed tectiorem, ex Q. Mucii P. F. 
edicto Asiatico, "extra quam si ita negotium gestum est, ut eo stari non 
oporteat ex fide bona," multaque sum secutus Scaevolae, in iis illud, in quo 
sibi libertatem censent Graeci datam, ut Graeci inter se disceptent suis 
legibus. Breve autem edictum est propter hanc meam Sicupeo-ii/ quod 
duobus generibus edicendum putavi; quorum unum est provinciale, in quo 
est de rationibus civitatum, de acre alieno, de usura, de syngraphis, in 
eodem omnia de publicanis; alterum, quod sine edicto satis commode 
transigi non potest, de hereditatum possession! bus, de bonis possidendis, 
vendendis, magistris faciendis, quae ex edicto et postulari et fieri solent, 
tertium de reliquo iure dicundo aypa<f>ov reliqui. Dixi me de eo genere 
mea decreta ad edicta urbana accommodaturum, itaque euro et satis facio 
adhuc omnibus. Graeci vero exsultant, quod peregrinis iudicibus utuntur. 
Nugatoribus quidem, inquies. Quid refert? Tamen se aVovo/xiav adep- 
tos putant. Cf. also Cic. adfam. 3. 8. 4; ad Att. 5. 21. n. 

4 Cf. Cic. ad Att. 5. 21. 1 1; 6. i. 15; adfam. 3. 8. 4. 

[ 50 ] 


that of the preceding year 1 . Cicero tells us that his edict 
was in three sections. The second part dealt with such 
matters as the granting of bonorum possessiones and mis- 
stones in bona, and the third section, which was modelled 
on the edict of the urban praetor, treated de reliquo iure 
dicundo. It is the first section, the part which Cicero 
characterizes as provinciate, which is of special interest to 
us. This portion of the edict described the policy which 
Cicero would follow and the rules which he would adopt 
in handling the accounts of cities, and in dealing with 
questions involving debt, the taking of usury, transac- 
tions in bonds, and the business of the tax farmers. 
Arrangements were made to relieve many cities of their 
debts 2 , to force dishonest local magistrates to return their 
ill-gotten gains 3 , to keep down the expenses of the Cilician 
cities 4 , to prevent usurers from exacting more than the 
legal rate of 1 2 per cent. 5 , to save the cities from exorbitant 
requisitions 6 , and to secure their rights alike to the pro- 
vincials and the tax farmers 7 . These were some of the 
practical applications of the principles laid down in the 
first section of Cicero's edict. Governors of provinces, 
even under the empire, retained the ius edicendi which 
Cicero exercised, but after the codification of the provincial 
edict under Hadrian, and its legalization by a decree of the 
senate 8 , this right had little practical meaning 9 . Under the 
empire changes in the status of cities in imperial provinces 

1 Cf. Cic. in Fcrr. 2. 90; 5. 3. 2 Cf. Cic. ad Att. 6. 2. 4. 

3 Cf. Cic. ad Att. 6. 2. 5. 4 Cf. Cic. adfam. 3. 8. 5. 

5 Cf. Cic. ad Att. 5. 21. n. 6 Cf. Cic. ad Att. 5. 16. 3. 

7 Cf. Cic. ad Att. 6. 2. 5. 

8 It is still a disputed question whether after the reforms of Salvius 
Julian us there was an e die turn perpetuum for each province or a uniform edict 
for all the provinces; cf. Karlowa, 63 if. and Girard, Manuel tttm. de droit 
rom. $2jf. 

9 In this connection it is interesting to notice that Anicius Maximus, a 
governor of Bithynia under Trajan, ruled that in certain cities of his pro- 
vince men chosen to the local senates by the censors should pay an initiation 
fee (cf. Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 1 1 2). 

C 51 ] 4-2 


at least were made under direct instructions from the 
emperor 1 . Legally these changes held good only during 
the reign of the emperor who made them, but after the 
middle of the first century of our era it was customary 
for an emperor to ratify the acts of his predecessor 2 . 

To sum up our conclusions then, the working constitu- 
tion and the laws of the city of Apamea, for instance, in 
the second century of our era would be based on the lex 
provinriae of Cilicia, as modified by special concessions, 
restrictions, or changes made by the senatorial com- 
mission or the general who organized the province, and as 
subsequently changed by decrees of the senate, by edicts 
or rulings of the governors of Cilicia, or by imperial 
constitutions or mandata. It is impossible, therefore, to 
give a list of the rights enjoyed by provincial cities of a 
certain class which will hold for all the cities of that class. 
This statement is true in particular of the civitates stipen- 
diariae. We can, however, specify the privileges which 
were frequently granted to cities of this sort. The privilege 
most highly prized by the people of these cities was the 
retention of their local codes 3 and the right of having their 
actions at law decided by their fellow-citizens. They re- 
tained also their local organs of government magistracies, 

1 See pp. 233^*. For literary specimens of these imperial communi- 
cations, see the two epistles of Domitian and an edict and epistle of Nerva in 
Plin. Ep. ad Trai. 58. In the seventy-ninth letter an edict of Augustus fixing 
the minimum age for incumbency of the local magistracies in Bithynia is 
mentioned by Pliny; in the sixty-fifth letter he speaks of various imperial 
edicts concerning Asia, Sparta, and Achaea. 

2 Cf. Suet. Tit. 8. 

3 Cf. Cicero's remark in a letter from Cilicia (ad Att. 6. i . 15): multaque 
sum secutus Scaevolae, in iis illud, in quo sibi libertatem censent Graeci 
datam, ut Graeci inter se disceptent suis legibus, and, in speaking of the 
court which he held at Laodicea, he says (ad Alt. 6. 2.4) : omnes (civitates) 
suis legibus et iudiciis usae, avrovop,iav adeptae, revixerunt. Cf. also Cic. 
in Verr. 2. 32. Scaevola had been governor of Asia, so that the same prin- 
ciple must have held in that province also. For the method of choosing 
jurors in Sicily when Romans or Sicilians of different towns were involved,, 
cf. p. 49. 

[ 52 ] 


senates, and popular assemblies as we can see clearly 
from Pliny's letters to Trajan, and communities on the 
frontier probably had the privilege of raising an armed 
force in an emergency for self-defence. Cities of this class, 
with the approval of the emperor or governor, also had the 
right to lay taxes on their citizens 1 , and in some cases to 
issue copper coins, although the minting of other coins 
was in the hands of the central government 2 . 

The rights of the tributary cities do not at the first 
glance seem to differ materially from those of the free 
cities. Communities of both classes retained their local 
codes, had their own senates, assemblies, and courts, and 
had the right to lay taxes and make contracts. But, as we 
noticed above, the stipendiary cities were subject to the 
payment of tribute and to all the abuses attendant upon it; 
they were liable to the constant interference of the governor 
of the province in their internal affairs, as we can infer from 
the letters of Pliny, and they had to submit to the billeting 
of troops and to the requisitions and exactions of Roman 
officials and soldiers 3 . The two classes of cities discussed 
in this chapter shared with the municipia the privilege of 
retaining their traditional procedure 4 . Only colonies were 
required to adopt Roman law. In other words all provincial 
cities of native origin, except those which were raised to 
the status of a colony, had the common characteristic of 
being governed by their own local codes of laws. The edict 
of Caracalla went far toward raising the stipendiary cities 
to a level with the other cities of the empire. Up to 
A.D. 212 the Romans residing in these cities enjoyed a 
general immunity from local liturgies. Their exemption 

1 See the permission to levy vectigalia granted by Augustus to the 
Saborenses and confirmed by Vespasian, no. 61. 

2 Cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 762. 

3 How vexatious were the requisitions of the soldiers and imperial freed- 
men is brought out in the appeals for relief made to the emperor in the third 
century by the Aragueni (no. 141) and the people of Scaptoparene (no. 


<C/.p. 9 . 

[ 53 ] 


made the financial burdens of their less fortunate fellow- 
citizens very heavy. Consequently the granting of Roman 
citizenship to the natives of tribute-paying cities by Cara- 
calla 1 put all the residents of these cities on an equality, 
and removed the financial disabilities from which the non- 
Roman element had suffered. 

This chapter brings to an end our study of the various 
political units which the Romans used in the administra- 
tion of the empire, and we may stop for a moment to survey 
the growth of the policy which Rome adopted in her rela- 
tions with the rest of the world. As Schulten has well said 2 , 
the history of Rome illustrates the steady development of 
the imperial idea. At the outset the city of Rome stands 
alone. In time she gains hegemony over the members of 
the Latin League. Through the conquest of Italy comes 
her supremacy over the whole peninsula, with the forced 
concession of liberal rights to Italian communities as a 
result of the Social war. The acquisition of the provinces 
brought her into relations not only with cities, which were 
granted autonomy under treaty rights, but also with sub- 
ject towns and tribes, and finally the theory, not that 
Rome, but that the emperor was master of the world 
developed, and the city of Rome sank to the level of the 
other cities of the empire. 

1 See especially the commentary on no. 192. 

2 Rh. Mus. 50 (1895), 556. 

[ 54 ] 















en """^ 






















; y 














tJ ^1 


-2^ ^ 


1 :IJ 











^ HE Romans found in the cities which were brought 
under their control forms of government which 
differed from one another in many particulars. They 
differed in respect to the numbers, titles, and functions 
of the city magistrates, and in the share which the people 
or the aristocracy had in the control of affairs. The chief 
magistrate, for instance, in many of the old Italian cities 
was called praetor 1 , or dictator 2 , or interrex 3 , or consul 4 . 
In Africa he was usually styled sufes 5 , while in Greek 
lands the commonest titles were apyatv and crrpar^yo?. 
Usually the college of chief magistrates was composed of 
two members, but we occasionally find /// viri and even 
X viri mentioned in the inscriptions 6 . In the East the 
local senate was, nominally at least, more quickly re- 
sponsive to the popular will than it was in the West, 
because its members in Greek cities were frequently 
chosen by a direct vote of the people and held their 
positions for a year only, whereas in the West senates were 
largely made up of ex-magistrates who served for life. In 
the West a large measure of uniformity was introduced 
into the municipal system before the close of the re- 
publican period. This change was largely due to the fact 
that the cities in the western provinces rarely had long 
political traditions behind them, so that they found no great 

1 E.g. at Anagnia, Auximum, Beneventum. Cf. Dessau, 3, p. 694. 

2 E.g. at Aricia, Caere, Lanuvium. Cf. op. cit. p. 686. 

3 E.g. at Formiae and Fundi. Cf. op. cit. p. 690. 

4 E.g. at Ariminum. Cf. op. cit. p. 684. 

5 E.g. at Thugga and Avitta Bibba. Cf. op. cit. p. 698. 

6 Cf. op. at. pp. 686, 698. 

[ 56 ] 


difficulty in accepting a ready-made system. In fact in 
this quarter of the world Roman institutions and the Latin 
language made rapid headway, and partly by voluntary 
imitation, partly by legislation, the system which had 
developed in the city of Rome prevailed. In the East, 
however, Greek culture and the Greek language stood in 
the way of the ready adoption of Latin institutions, and 
titles and practices which had existed for generations 
could not be easily changed. But it is true that, while old 
titles and forms were tenaciously held, magisterial func- 
tions and essential governmental methods were brought 
into greater conformity with western practice, and after 
the promulgation of Caracalla's constitution the tendency 
toward uniformity was very marked. It will be con- 
venient therefore to take up separately the municipal 
systems of the West and the East, while recognizing the 
fact that even in the West 1 no description in all its details 
will be applicable to every city. 

Municipalities all over the Roman world enjoyed com- 
plete or limited self-government. They chose their own 
magistrates and passed their own ordinances. The govern- 
ing powers in them were the local magistrates, the local 
senate, and the popular assembly. In the West the titles 
and functions of these three organs of government were 
made reasonably uniform toward the end of the republic. 
Whether the natural tendency toward uniformity was 
stimulated by drawing up model municipal charters or not 
is a matter of much doubt 2 . 

The populus or plebs urbana was made up of citizens 

1 Our principal sources of information concerning the municipal system 
are the inscriptions, and in particular eleven municipal laws and charters, 
of which seven are given in this book (cf. nos. 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 64 and 
65). The others, which are very fragmentary and add little, if anything, 
to our knowledge of the subject, are Bruns, 31, 32, 33 and 33 a. All these 
legal documents come from the West and four of them belong to Caesar's 

2 Many scholars have supposed that the lex lulia municipalis was in- 
tended as a model, but cf. commentary on no. 24. 

C 57 ] 


(coloni) municipeS) cives) and of resident aliens (incolae). 
Both classes were subject to the munera, and both had the 
right to vote, but resident aliens were not allowed to hold 
office until a later period in the empire. Resident aliens 
were also subject to the court processes and to the munera 
of their native city. Local citizenship was gained, as at 
Rome, by birth or adoption, by manumission 1 , or through 
the gift of the emperor or the local senate. For voting 
purposes citizens were grouped in curiae^ tribes, or cen- 
turies. In Malaca resident aliens, who were Roman or 
Latin citizens, were assigned by lot to one of the curiae 
in the popular assembly 2 , and a similar practice was prob- 
ably followed in other municipalities. We are particularly 
concerned with the relations of the central government to 
the municipalities, and in connection with resident aliens 
there is an exercise of imperial power in the municipalities 
which is of interest to us 8 . An instance in point is the 
transfer of the citizenship of a certain C. Valerius Avitus 
by Pius from the municipium Augustum to the colonia 
Tarraconensis 4 . Another interesting case is the adlectw 
by Hadrian of a certain Valerius into the colonia Caesar- 
augustana 5 . Under the republic the people seem to have 
exercised freely their power to legislate on many matters 6 , 
but under the empire the principal function of the popular 
assembly was the election of magistrates or priests for 
which elaborate provisions are made in chapters 5260 
of the lex municipalis Malacitana of Domitian's time. Many 
municipal inscriptions record the fact that a statue has 
been set up in honor of a certain individual postulante 
populo or ex consensu et postulatione populi^ but the formal 

1 Dig. 50. i. i; Cod. J. 10. 40. 7. 

2 Cf. no. 65, chap. 53. This is the custom followed in the case of 
resident Latins at Rome in early days; cf. Livy, 25.3. 

3 Mommsen, St. R. 2, 883^*.; 1081, nn. 2 and 4. 
* CIL. n, 4277. 

5 CIL. n, 4249; cf. also Schmidt, R.E. i, 369 and Diz. Ep. i, 414^. 

6 Cic. de leg. 3. 16. 36: et avus quidem noster singular) virtute in hoc 
municipio, quoad vixit, restitit M. Gratidio. . .ferenti legem tabellariam. 

c 58 ] 


action in such cases was taken by the local senate, and 
popular approval was probably indicated in some informal 

The chief magistrates in western municipalities were 
usually styled duoviri iure dicundo. Below them were the 
duoviri aediles. Sometimes these two boards formed a 
single college and the members of it were known as 
quattuorviri iure dicundo and quattuorviri aediles. Usually 
the magistrates in colonies were called duovirs, and in 
municipia^ quattuorvirs 1 . Every fifth year the chief magis- 
trates took the census and then received the title quin- 
quennales. In the absence of the duovirs their place was 
taken by a prefect. The treasury was managed by 
quaestors, usually two in number. 

The conditions of eligibility to the duovirate are laid 
down with great precision in the tabula Heracleensis* and 
in the lex municipalis Malacitana*, and in the lex coloniae 
Genetivae luliae* it is provided that no one shall be 
eligible to a magistracy who may not be made a decurion. 
In the tabula Heracleensis of Caesar's time the age require- 
ment is thirty years 5 , but toward the close of the first 
century of our era it has been reduced to twenty-five at 
least. Perhaps this change was made by Augustus 6 . A 
candidate must of course be a free-born citizen, solvent, 
never convicted in the courts or brought into disrepute 
by following an ignoble trade, and he must follow the 
cursus honorum through the quaestorship and aedileship. 
Nomination and election proceeded as at Rome. The lex 
municipalis Malacitana^ however, has a significant pro- 
vision 7 to the effect that, if an insufficient number of 
candidates offer themselves, the official who is to preside 
may make the necessary nominations, but the men thus 

1 Liebenam in R.E. 5, 1804. 

2 No. 24, 11. 89/1 3 No. 65, chap. 54. 
4 No. 26, chap, roi; cf. also no. 24, 11. 135^. 5 No. 65, chap. 54. 

6 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 79. 2. 

7 No. 65, chap. 51. 

[ 59 ] 


nominated by him may propose the names of other people 
in place of their own. 

As chief magistrate one of the duovirs presided at 
meetings of the popular assembly and senate, and carried 
out measures passed by either of these bodies. A good 
illustration of his functions in such matters is furnished 
by the famous inscription of 105 B.C. from Puteoli 1 . He 
had general charge, not only of public works and buildings, 
but also of public funds. He managed public festivals 
and games, and every five years took the census. Reference 
seems clearly to be made to the criminal and civil juris- 
diction of the municipal magistrate in the tabula Herac- 
leensis^^ in the lex lulia agraria*^ and in the lex de Gallia 
Cisalpina*, while in the lex coL Gen. lul? we read: ne quis 
in hac colonia ius dicito neve cuius in ea colonia iuris 
dictio esto nisi II viri aut quern II vir praefectum reliquerit 
aut aedilis uti hac lege oportebit, neve quis pro eo imperio 
potestateve facito, quo quis in ea colonia ius dicat, nisi 
quern ex hac lege dicere oportebit. The criminal juris- 
diction which the duovir exercised in Italy under the 
republic was transferred under the early empire to the 
praetorian prefect and the city prefect. In the provinces 
the governor absorbed the judicial powers of the local 
magistrate. This encroachment of the imperial govern- 
ment on the functions of the municipal magistrate came 
about gradually, and it is important for our purpose to 
trace briefly the development of the process. To the office 
of praefectus praetorio^ as established by Augustus, only 
military functions were assigned 6 . The appointment of 
Sejanus to the post and the long absence of Tiberius from 
Rome gave it a political significance. Later Burrus, as one 
of the chief councillors of Nero, held the position, and 

1 CIL. i, 577 = x, 1781 = Dessau, 5317 = Wilmanns, 697. Cf. also 
Wiegand, Jahr.f. class. Phil, suppl. 20 (1894), 66iff. 

2 No. 24, 1. 119. 3 Bruns, 15, chap. 3. 

4 No. 27, chap. 20, 11. 5-15, 23, 31; chap. 23, 1. 54. 

5 No. 26, chap. 94. 6 Herzog, 2, 203^. 

[ 60 j 


under Commodus the praetorian prefect Perennis became 
practically prime minister 1 . From this time on the civil 
functions of the office predominated, and that its judicial 
importance increased is clearly proved by the appointment 
to it of such eminent jurists as Papinian, Paulus, and 
Ulpian 2 . Like the office of praetorian prefect that of city 
prefect gained greatly in importance during the absence 
of Tiberius from Rome. It was the duty of the praefectus 
urbi to maintain order, and naturally the power was given 
him to try and to inflict punishment on those guilty of 
crimes. In this way his court soon crowded out the 
quaestiones in Rome and put an end to the criminal juris- 
diction of municipal magistrates in villages up to one 
hundred miles from Rome. Criminal jurisdiction in the 
rest of Italy beyond that point was under the control of 
the praetorian prefect 3 , while in the provinces it was 
administered by the governor. By this transfer of power 
municipal magistrates lost an important part of their 
functions, and their dignity was correspondingly lessened. 
In the middle of the first century B.C., in civil actions 
the duovirs or quattuorvirs were competent to hear cases 
involving as much as ten thousand or fifteen thousand 
sesterces 4 , and in certain cases they had jurisdiction irre- 
spective of the amount involved. In Latin municipia they 
could also legalize manumission, emancipation from the 
patria potestas and adoption 5 , and could impose penalties 
for the violation of local ordinances 6 . These various 

1 Hist. Aug. Com. 5. 

2 Hist. Aug. Pesc. Nig. 7 ; Alex. Sev. 26. Cf. also ibid. Ant. Phil. 1 1 ; 
Sept. Sev. 4. 

3 See the passage quoted by Mommsen, St. R. 2, 969, n. 2 from Ulpi- 
anus, lib. 9 de ojficio proconsulis (written under Caracalla; Coll. Mos. Rom. 
Leg. 14. 3. 2): iam eo perventum est constitutionibus, ut Romae quidem 
praefectus urbis solus super ea re cognoscat, si intra miliarium centesimura 
sit in via commissa. Enimvero si ultra centesimum, praefectorum praetorio 
erit cognitio, in provincia (vero) praesidum provinciarum. 

4 Cf. commentary on nos. 27 and 28. 

5 Liebenam, R.E. 5, 1834. 6 Op. cit. 5, 1835. 



powers were much curtailed in the later period as we shall 
have occasion to notice in another connection 1 . 

The same principle of collegiality held good for the 
duovirs as was observed by the consuls in Rome. In 
Salpensa and Malaca each could veto the action of the 
other within certain limits 2 . In matters where only one 
duovir could officiate, preference was given to the older 
one in Malaca 3 . Municipal aediles were colleagues of the 
duovirs, just as praetors at Rome were colleagues of the 
consuls, but like the praetors they were collegae minores, 
and could not oppose the action of the duovirs. 

In many cities a magistrate on taking office was re- 
quired to pay an initiation fee 4 , and during his term to 
contribute to the public games 5 , and he was expected to 
give large sums for the improvement of his native city, 
or for the entertainment of his fellow-townsmen. While in 
office he was served by attendants, had a special seat in the 
theatre, and enjoyed certain other marks of distinction 6 . 

It is interesting to notice that the emperor was not 
infrequently chosen duovir, and provision was made for 
this purpose in the charter of Salpensa 7 . The usage in this 
matter becomes more sharply defined as we advance into 
the empire. Three early instances of an honorary duovirate 
occur in the case of T. Statilius Taurus 8 , a prominent 
political leader under Augustus 9 , and M. Barbatius 10 , 
another supporter of Augustus, and Ti. Statilius Severus 11 . 

1 See pp. 200 f. 2 No. 64, chap. 27; no. 65, chap. 58. 

3 No. 65, chap. 52. 4 Liebenam, St. Ferw. 54^. 

5 No. 26, chap. 70. 6 Liebenam, R.E. 5, iSij/. 

7 No. 64, chap. 24. 

8 See the inscription from Dyrrhachium (CIL, in, 605) praefectus quinq. 
T. Statili Tauri. 

9 Prosop. 3, 263, no. 615. Taurus held the consulship for the first time 
in 37 B.C. and was consul again in 26 B.C. In the year 16 B.C. (cf. Tac. Ann. 
6. i r) he was very advanced in age, so that he must have been honorary 
duovir at Dyrrhachium early in the reign of Augustus. 

10 Mommsen, St. R. 2, 828, n. 5. He was quaestor in 41 B.C.; cf. Klebs, 
R.E. 3, 2. 

CIL. x, 3910. 

[ 62 ] 


These are the only known cases in which the honor was 
granted to anyone not connected with the imperial family 1 . 
Under Augustus, and for a time under Tiberius, it might 
be conferred on any member of the imperial family 2 , but 
from the closing years of Tiberius' reign no other repre- 
sentative of the ruling house than the emperor or his 
destined successor could hold it 3 . When a private citizen 
or a prince held the office he had a colleague, but appa- 
rently from the last years of Tiberius' reign it was pro- 
vided that the emperor should have no colleague in the 
office 4 . When an honorary duovir was appointed, the 
actual duties of the office were performed by a prefect 5 . 
In other words an imperial appointee became chief magis- 
trate in a city in such a case. The number of imperial 
prefects of whom we have a record is not large enough to 
make this official an important factor in bringing the cities 
under the control of the central government, but the im- 
portance of the office lies in the fact that we have here the 
earliest instance of the appointment of an imperial official 
to take charge of the affairs of a city. The praefectus im- 
peratoris is the progenitor of the curator ret publicae who 
played so important a role in robbing local magistrates of 
their authority 6 and in bringing local affairs under the 
control of Rome. It may, in fact, be significant that the 
imperial prefect disappears at about the time when the 
curatorship was established 7 . 

The functions of the municipal aedile were identical 
with those of his counterpart in Rome, and, therefore, 

1 Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who was honorary duovir in Pisidian 
Antioch (cf. CIL. in, S. 6809), was the father of Nero. 

2 Cf. e.g. CIL. n, 1534, S. 5617; in, S. 6843; v, 7567; x, 901, 902, 
904, 6 1 01. 

3 Mommsen, Stadtrechte von Salpensa u. Malaca, 415. 

4 Op. dt. 43 1 . 

5 This procedure involved the exercise within well defined limits of an 
autocratic power granted to Caesar in the lex col. Gen. lul. no. 26, chap. 125. 

6 Cf. pp. 9 off. 

7 Kornemann, R.E. 4, i8o6/.; Hist. Aug. Had. 19. 


need not be described here. In fact it is reasonably 
certain that the office did not develop independently in 
the various Italian cities, but that it was directly introduced 
into their municipal systems by Rome 1 . In a very small 
number of Italian cities, where there had been in early 
times a praefectus iure dicundo^ on the removal of this 
official, the aedile became the chief magistrate and even 
held the census 2 . 

Most municipalities had quaestors whose powers were 
similar to those of the quaestor in Rome. Where the office 
of quaestor was lacking, its duties were taken over by a 
third aedile chosen for the purpose or by one of the 
duovirs 3 . 

In connection with the magistrates we should also 
notice the local priests, the pontiffs, augurs, sacerdotes, 
and, under the empire, the flamens 4 . Provision is made 
in the lex col. Gen. lul? for the election of certain of these 
priests in the local comitia. Of these priests the flamens 
who were attached to the cult of the emperor and of the 
imperial house are of the most interest to us, because they 
played an important part in developing loyalty to the 
emperor and in giving unity to the empire; through the 
imperial cult which they fostered, the concilia of the pro- 
vinces developed, which exerted considerable influence in 
bringing the cities, the provinces, and the imperial govern- 
ment into closer relations 6 . 

In the cities of Italy the municipal senate was often 
called senatus 1 ) but it was repugnant to Roman sentiment 
to allow Roman official titles to be used by magistrates or 

1 Kubitschek, R.E. i, 459. 

2 Kubitschek, op. cit. i, 461. 

3 Marquardt, St. Ferw. i, 167. 

4 For the various priestly offices, cf. Dessau, 3, 568-584. 

5 No. 26, chap. 66. 

6 For a list of imperial flamens in the municipalities, see Dessau, 3, 


7 Kiibler, R.E. 4, 2319^*. Constant use has been made of Kiibler's 
excellent article in the rest of this chapter. 


organizations outside Rome, and in new colonies senators 
were commonly called decuriones and the body to which 
they belonged, ordo decurionum. In all the different classes 
of cities or villages described in chapters i and n, except 
the viciy castella^ and canabae^ there was a local senate. 
Usually this body had one hundred members. This is the 
case, for instance, at Canusium 1 , Cures, and Veii 2 . Smaller 
numbers are occasionally found, however 3 . The rolls of 
the ordo were prepared at intervals of five years by the 
quinquennales from the list of ex-magistrates, with such 
additions as were needed to make up the normal number. 
In some Greek cities, however, we find the method of 
popular election or of cooptation followed 4 . Under the 
republic venal or autocratic governors interfered with the 
free choice of local senators 5 . Under the empire governors 
acted within the law, but, if we may draw an inference 
from Pliny's experience in Bithynia 6 , questions of eligi- 
bility and conditions of admission to local senates were 
settled by the governor. Occasionally the emperor directly 
nominated a senator 7 . The senatorial lists from Canusium 8 
and Thamugadi 9 show us the composition of senates in 
the third and fourth centuries respectively. In the senate 
of Canusium there were sixty-eight ex-magistrates and 
thirty-two members who had held no office. In addition 
to this list of one hundred active members there stand in 
the album the names of thirty-nine patroni, who were 
honorary members, and of twenty-five praetextati^ or sons 
of senators, who of course did not have the right to speak or 
vote. Inasmuch as most senators were ex-magistrates, 

1 Cf. commentary on no. 136. 2 Mommsen, St. R. 3, 845, n. i. 
3 Cf. commentary on no. 151. 4 Kubler, op. cit. 4, 2324/1 

5 Cic. in Verr. 2. 120: quorum ex testimoniis cognoscere potuistis tota 
Sicilia per triennium neminem ulla in civitate senatorem factum esse gratis, 
neminem, ut leges eorum sunt, suffragiis, neminem nisi istius imperio aut 

6 Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 79, 80, 112, 113. 

7 CIL. x, 1271 = Dessau, 6343. 

8 No. 136. 9 CIL. vin, 2403 = Dessau, 6122. 

AMA [ 6 5 ] 5 


conditions of eligibility for a magistracy were applicable 
to membership in the ordo 1 . In almost every municipality 
free birth was a prerequisite to membership, but in certain 
ultramarine colonies, like Urso, Corinth, and Carthage, 
to which Caesar probably took out many freedmen, the 
requirement of free birth was relaxed for a time 2 . Although 
local citizenship was a condition of eligibility, we occasion- 
ally find a resident alien admitted to the senate 3 , and in 
other cases citizens of one community were also granted 
the right of citizenship in another municipality, and in 
this way could hold office in both places 4 . The minimum 
age requirement in the early period for a magistracy, and 
consequently for the senate, was thirty years 5 . Later it 
was reduced to twenty-five years 6 , and an edict of Augustus 
perhaps set it at twenty-two 7 , but Trajan interpreted the 
edict as requiring a minimum of thirty years from those 
who had not held a magistracy. The property qualification 
was usually one hundred thousand sesterces 8 . The initia- 
tion fee varied in amount from one city to another 9 . In 
Rusicade it reached the exceptional sum of twenty thou- 
sand sesterces 10 . Decurions wore a characteristic dress, 
had special seats at the plays and games, were exempt 
from certain forms of punishment, and could appeal to the 
emperor when under a capital charge 11 . 

1 Cf. pp. 59/ 

2 Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, 49, n. 116. 

3 Dessau, 6916: ex incolatu de ' curio ; cf. also 6992. 

4 Dessau, 6624: C. Alfius C. f. Lem. Ruf. II vir quinq. col. lul. Hispelli 
et II vir quinq. in municipio suo Casini; 7005: omnibus honoribus in 
colonia Equestr. et in col. Viennensium functus. The case of a certain M. 
Valerius is interesting (cf. Dessau, 6933). He was a citizen of the res 
publica Damanitanorum, adlectus in coloniam Caesaraugustanam ex bene- 
fic. divi Hadriani, and then is spoken of as omnib. honorib. in utraq. re p. 

6 No. 24, 11. Sqf. 6 No. 65, chap. 54. 

7 Cf. supra, p. 59, n. 6. 

8 Plin. Epp. i. 19. 2; Petronius, 44. 

9 Kubler, R.E. 4, 2329. 10 CIL. vm, 7983. 
11 Kubler, R.E. 4, 2331-2. 

[ 66 ] 


The procedure in a local senate was modelled on that 
of the Roman senate. Indeed many probable conclusions 
concerning the method of transacting business in the 
Roman senate may be drawn from a study of the municipal 
charters and from pertinent inscriptions. Not only do the 
articles found in the charters providing for the presence 
of a fixed number of senators when certain matters are 
being settled remind one of the practices of the Roman 
senate, but they also indicate the items of business which 
were considered of the most importance. Two-thirds of 
the members of the ordo of the colonia Genetiva lulia must 
be present to authorize the building of new aqueducts 1 , 
or the choosing of festival days 2 , and under the lex 
municipalis Malacitana the same number must be present 
to audit accounts 3 , or to settle the question of bondsmen 4 . 
Fifty members constituted a quorum in the colonia 
Genetiva lulia in authorizing the sending of embassies 5 , 
the demolition of buildings 6 , in legislating concerning 
public funds, public buildings, public squares 7 , and roads 8 , 
in assigning places for the people at the public games 9 , 
and in choosing patrons 10 , except that, if a Roman senator 
or the son of a Roman senator were proposed as patron, 
the presence of three-fourths of the decurions was re- 
quired 11 . Favorable action could be taken in the colonia 
Genetiva lulia to grant citizens the right to use waste 
water from the reservoirs, if forty senators were present 12 , 
and an act could be passed empowering the duovirs to 
pay the contractors who had provided sacrifices, if twenty 

I No. 26, chap. 99. 2 Ibid. chap. 64. 
3 No. 65, chap. 67. 4 Ibid. chap. 64. 
6 No. 26, chap. 92. 

6 Ibid. chap. 75; cf. also no. 65, chap. 62. 

7 No. 26, chap. 96. 8 Ibid. chap. 98. 
9 Ibid, chapp. 125, 126. 10 Ibid. chap. 97. 

II Ibid. chap. 130. In Malaca a quorum of two-thirds of the members 
was required when patrons were chosen; cf. no. 65, chap. 61. 

12 No. 26, chap. 100, and commentary on no. 33. 

[ 67 ] s-* 


members were present 1 . The calling out of the militia, 
which did not permit of delay, could be authorized with- 
out the presence of any specified number 2 . These items 
of business illustrate the wide range of powers which the 
decurions enjoyed. It is clear that, in the first century, 
they, and not the magistrates, were the directing power 
in the municipality. It is rather surprising that Caesar, 
in founding the colonia Genetiva lulia after his hard 
struggle with the Roman senate, did not magnify the 
power of the magistrates or the popular assembly at the 
expense of the ordo^ but he adopted the pure Roman 
tradition for the three branches of the government. The 
municipal assembly, as we have already noticed, exercised 
practically no legislative powers. In view of the fact that 
the senate's power predominated in the municipality, it 
is not strange that in the later period, when the central 
government found it difficult to collect taxes, it should 
put the responsibility for them on the decurions. We shall 
see later that the curator rei publicae exercised at times the 
power of annulling decreta decurionum. 

The encroachment of the imperial power on the 
legislative rights of municipal senates is noticeable as 
early as the beginning of the second century. Pliny writes 3 
to ask Trajan what shall be done about the aqueduct at 
Nicomedeia, the theatre at Nicaea, and whether he shall 
audit the accounts of Apamea. In Byzantium he cuts off 
the appropriation for a legate. All of these matters, as 
we have noticed, were within the jurisdiction of the local 
senate. These are indications of an overshadowing of the 
local senate by the imperial government and of a decline 
in its importance, but, in the main, membership in it seems 
to have been prized up to the close of the second century 
of our era. 

1 No. 26, chap. 69. 2 7<$w;hap. 103. 3 Cf. pp. 143^ 

[ 68 ] 



WHEN the Romans first entered Greece, the era 
of the independent city-state had already passed. 
Some of these had come, directly or indirectly, 
under the control of the Macedonian monarchy. Others 
had already joined a federation wherein they preserved 
their autonomy in local affairs, while the control of their 
armies and the conduct of their foreign relations were 
under the direction of a federal council. Membership in 
the Achaean League seems to have been voluntary, if we 
except the case of Sparta. On the other hand, the Aetolian 
League seems to have brought some of its members into 
the federation by force, and in such cases the local govern- 
ment must have been controlled by a pro-league party, 
or by force of arms. The development of these great 
Leagues was an important factor in restraining the Mace- 
donian kings from exercising despotic sway over the Greek 
cities under their hegemony. While many states retained 
their traditional forms, the local government was con- 
trolled by a system of tyrannies, or by royal agents who 
effectively checked any expression of the ancient political 

When the freedom of the Greek cities had been pro- 
claimed by Flamininus, the Roman senate became in- 
volved as arbiter in all the disputes which broke out as 

1 This subject is treated in the following works: Kuhn, Die stadt. u. 
burger! . Verfassung d. rom. Reichs, 2. 144^.; Marquardt, St. Verw. I. 
316^.; Mommsen, The Provinces ofahe Roman Empire^ i. 252^.; Levy, 
La vie municipale de I'Asie Mineure^ikv. d. //. grec. 8 (1895), 203^., 12 
(1899), 255JT-, 14 ( r 9 0> 35^-5 Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d'Asie\ 
Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia\ Reid, The Municipalities of 
the Roman Empire \ Jouguet, La vie municipale dans rgypte romaine* 


soon as the Roman forces were withdrawn. The commis- 
sions sent out to settle the local quarrels of the various 
cities usually threw their influence on the side of oligarchy ; 
and, since the Roman senate preferred to treat with the 
aristocratic party represented by the magistrates and local 
senate rather than with the fickle popular assembly, the 
democratic institutions steadily declined in political im- 
portance 1 . 

When the kingdom of Perseus was finally overthrown 
by the Romans, Paullus established four republics on the 
ruins of the Macedonian Empire. It is unfortunate that 
we have no evidence as to the form of government estab- 
lished in the individual cities, or their relation to the 
federal administration. We may safely assume, however, 
that the municipalities were controlled by an oligarchy 
friendly to Rome. When Macedonia was finally organized 
as a Roman province, the republics were abolished, but 
traces of their existence may be discerned in later times 2 . 

After the destruction of Corinth Mummius modelled 
the constitutions of Peloponnesian cities on oligarchical 
lines, and revolutionary tendencies on the part of demo- 
cratic factions vjere rigorously checked 3 . In other parts 
of Greece the aristocratic party, emboldened by the 
support of Rome, usurped the powers of the popular 
assemblies. This movement was fostered, directly or in- 
directly, by Roman magistrates and commissioners. 

In Greece the Romans had found the country wholly 
organized in civic communities, but in Asia conditions 
were very different. Here the Persians, in their advance 
to the shores of the Mediterranean, had found tribal 
organizations, villages grouped in principalities or king- 
doms, temple-states of various oriental cults, and Greek 
commonwealths in various stages of development between 

1 Colin, Rome et la Grece, 652. 

2 Frank, Class. Phil. 9 (1914), 49^ 
8 Pausanias, 7. 16. 9; no. 9. 

[ 70 ] 


tyranny and democracy. The conquerors made no attempt 
to found new cities. Those already established they 
governed through a system of tyrants, which was ended by 
Alexander. His biographers claim for him the credit of 
restoring democracy, but it may be doubted whether he 
was more liberal in Asia than he had been in Greece. The 
system of Persian satrapies was continued by the appoint- 
ment of governors in the various provinces. The cities 
were given a measure of independence in local affairs, and 
their administration was vested in the hands of the Greeks, 
who thus constituted a ruling oligarchy. Some features 
of the oriental bureaucracy must have been retained for 
the administration of the royal estates. Very little is known 
of the constitutions granted to the cities founded by 
Alexander. Apparently Alexandria had a senate and a 
popular assembly, at least for a time 1 . The Diadochi posed 
as patrons of Hellenism, and this attitude found ex- 
pression in the foundation of new cities. The extension of 
this policy was made possible by the great influx of Greek 
soldiers, merchants, and farmers who settled in every part 
of Asia. Cities sprang up along the great trade-routes, 
around military stations, and at other strategic centers. 
Above all, the city served as a useful unit in governing the 
country and in securing its loyalty. Many of the towns 
became very wealthy and powerful, and in time of war, 
or when the royal exchequer was low, they were able to 
secure concessions which gave them greater liberty in 

When the Romans extended their sway over Asia Minor, 
they adopted the same policy which they had pursued in 
Sicily. A few cities were allied to Rome; others were 
given their freedom with the right to use their own laws 
and institutions, and these cities probably enjoyed im- 
munity from tribute; the majority, however, became civi- 
tates stipendiariae, and paid tithes to Rome. The honorary 

1 Plaumann, Ktto 9 13 (1913), 485/1 

[ 7* ] 


title of colonia, with or without the ius Italicum^ was con- 
ferred by Caesar and later emperors on cities already 
established. After the age of Augustus new colonies were 
seldom founded in the eastern provinces 1 . 

The Roman senate appointed a commission to draw up 
a lex provinciae and to organize each province as it was 
admitted, although some commanders, as Pompey and 
Sulla, formulated laws for the provincials without the aid 
of a senatorial committee. The acts of military comman- 
ders, however, had to be ratified by the senate. We cannot 
tell how far the commissions interfered with the problems 
of local administration, but it is evident that no attempt 
was made to secure uniformity in municipal government 2 . 
The lex Cornelia regulated the amount which might be 
spent on embassies, and required the cities to elect their 
magistrates fifty days before the end of the year 3 . The lex 
Pompeia determined the age at which a candidate should 
stand for office, and provided that ex-magistrates should 
be enrolled as members of the local senate. The law also 
specified the reasons for which the censor might remove 
a senator from his seat 4 . These laws could be modified 
by edicts of the emperor or of the provincial governor, 
and some of the provisions were disregarded by the muni- 
cipalities themselves 5 . Gabinius is said to have revised 
the constitutional forms of Syrian cities in favor of olig- 
archy, and it is probable that this was the general 
tendency of Roman governors 6 . 

The Romans followed the Greek policy by founding 
new cities. Pompey alone is said to have founded thirty- 
nine 7 . Since he was a representative of the equestrian 
order, we may suppose that his purpose was to simplify 

1 R.E. s.v. colonta\ cf. pp. 

2 Marquardt is of the opinion that laws were devised for each autono- 
mous city, op. cit. i. 65, 78. 3 No. 34. 

4 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 79, 80, 112, 113, 114, 115. 

5 Ibid. 55, 65, 72, 79, 84, 108, 109, in, 112. 

6 Josephus, Ant. lud. 14. 5. 4. 7 Plutarch, Pompeius, 45. 

[ 72 ] 


the collection of taxes. The creation of a municipal organi- 
zation, whose members would be responsible for the 
payment of the tribute from their district, not only made 
it easier to collect taxes, but also gave the publicani greater 
opportunity for making loans and greater security for 
their repayment. It is not necessary to dwell upon the 
terrible exploitation of the Asiatic cities by tax-gatherers 
and Roman officials, as well as by the leaders of the 
various factions, who supported their armies by forced 
levies during the civil wars 1 . There is no evidence that 
the economic pressure resulted in any constitutional 
changes in the municipalities, but we may suppose that 
those interested in the collection of tribute would favor 
the election of the wealthier members of the community 
to office, while the constant arrears in the annual quota 
would give the governor unlimited opportunities to inter- 
fere in the problems of local administration. This state 
of affairs may explain the statement of Strabo that the 
ancient institutions of Cretan cities had fallen into 
abeyance, because the towns of Crete, as well as those of 
other provinces, were governed by the edicts of Roman 
rulers 2 . 

In their long experience in provincial government the 
Romans had found that the city, with its dependent terri- 
torium, was the unit through which the province could be 
best administered and the taxes most easily collected. 
For this reason the emperors devoted their attention to the 
spread of the municipal organization in every province. 
As the client kingdoms were incorporated in the empire, 
their territory was divided among cities or added to im- 
perial estates. The tribal units of Galatia and the pre- 
fectureships of Cappadocia were replaced by towns 3 . 
The territoria granted to many of the new foundations 
were often necessarily of vast extent. The larger village- 
communities, therefore, had an opportunity to develop 

1 Chapot, op. cit. i%jf. 2 Strabo, 10. 4. 22. 

3 Kuhn, op. cit. 2. 23 I ; Perrot, de Galatia provincia Rom ana, 83. 

[ 73 ] 


along independent lines, and many of them ultimately 
attained the rank of cities. By the beginning of the fourth 
century of the Christian era municipal institutions had 
spread throughout the Orient as the chief instrument of 
imperial administration. 

It would be impossible to outline, even in brief, the 
manifold forms of government found in the Greek cities. 
The ancient states had developed along individual lines, 
and all of them cherished their traditional customs with 
peculiar reverence. The Romans also had great respect 
for longa consuetude^ and since it was their policy to accept 
existing institutions as they found them, they contented 
themselves with modifying the powers exercised by the 
different branches of local administration. The lex 
Pompeia, which was followed in the cities of Pontus and 
Bithynia, determined the qualifications of senators and 
magistrates and the method of their appointment, but, 
apparently, abolished none of the traditional offices. For 
this reason a great variety of titles survived until late in 
the empire in the older towns, and especially in the free 
cities. Unfortunately we know nothing of the charters 
granted to eastern cities, if we except the fragmentary 
letter of an unknown emperor to the citizens of Tymanda. 
While the constitution given to new foundations may have 
varied according to local conditions, yet precedent was 
powerful in Roman law and custom, and it is equally 
possible that imperial charters followed some model, such 
as the lex lulia munidpalis. Special commissioners (cor- 
rectores) were sometimes sent out to regulate the affairs 
of provincial cities, but we do not know whether they made 
any attempt to revise the constitutions of the towns under 
their jurisdiction. The emperors in their travels occasion- 
ally devoted their attention to municipal problems, but 
the nature of their reforms cannot be determined 1 . Caesar 
is said to have made some changes in the administration 

1 Hist. Aug. Ha Jr. 19, 21 ; Herodian, 4. 8. 3 ; Tarsus was given laws by 
Augustus, Dio Chrys. 34. 8. 

[ 74 ] 


of Athens 1 , and in later times Hadrian attempted to revive 
the laws of Solon for the Athenians 2 ; but, for the most part, 
it is probable that the emperors contented themselves 
with financial and legal problems, and that in return for 
such benefits as were conferred the Greeks called them 
the benefactors and founders of their cities 3 . 

The popular assembly declined steadily as a political 
influence in the Greek cities under Roman rule. In the 
republican period the ecdesia in a few cities retained a 
certain amount of initiative and took some share in the 
work of local administration. Under the empire the evi- 
dence shows that the popular assembly was called together 
largely for the purpose of ratifying honorary decrees and 
such proposals as the magistrates chose to present to the 
people. The right of debate or amendment does not seem 
to have been exercised at any of these meetings 4 . In a few 
cities, however, exceptions may be found. The Athenian 
assembly retained some power as late as the third century 5 . 
At Tarsus Dio rebuked the citizens because the council 
of elders, the senate, and the people each strove for its 
own interest, and failed to cooperate for the common 
good 6 . The same orator also urged the citizens of Prusa, 
who had recently recovered the right to meet in assembly 
(eV/cA77criaeii/), to exercise their powers with discretion 
so that they might not again lose their privileges 7 . In 
some of the eastern cities we find a distinction drawn 
between members of the ecdesia (eV/cXTjcriao-Tcu), citizens, 
and other residents of the community 8 . This does not 
necessarily imply that there was an active popular assembly 

1 Swoboda, Gr. Volksbeschl. 192. 2 Cf. no. 90, commentary. 

3 The title KTurriys is frequently applied in Greek inscriptions to the 
emperor, governor, and even to private citizens. Cf. Anderson, Journ. 
Hell. Studies, 17 (1897), 402; B.C.H. 17 (1893), 247; Dirt. Or. Gr. 471. 

4 Swoboda, op. cit. ij6ff.\ but cf. R.E. s.v. KK\?;crta, p. 2199. 

5 Swoboda, op. cit. iqojf. 6 Dio Chrys. 34. 16. 

7 Ibid. 48. iff 

8 Lanckoronski, Stddte Pamphy liens und Pisidiens, $%ff.\ Liebenam, 
St. Verw. 2i6ff.\ no. 122. 

[ 75 ] 


in such cities, while it is true that, if the membership 
was limited in some way, the ecclesia naturally gained 
greater prestige and had a longer lease of life in the affairs 
of government. The edict of Caracalla, however, swept 
away the distinctions between the various classes in the 
community, and after the beginning of the third century 
the assembly disappeared as a legislative body. 

By the lex Pompeia the membership of the senate in 
Bithynian towns seems to have been limited to a pre- 
scribed number. The senators held office for life; magis- 
trates were admitted to the order on the completion of 
their term of office ; the revision of the rolls was entrusted 
to a censor; honorary members could be appointed with 
the consent of the emperor and on the payment of a fee; 
it was illegal to enroll citizens from other cities in the 
province 1 . These provisions show that Pompey took the 
Roman senate as his model in framing the law, and 
senates of this type are sometimes called "western" in 
contrast to those of the Greek cities which retained their 
former regulations. As a matter of fact, however, we 
know practically nothing of the method of appointing 
senators in eastern cities under Roman rule 2 . Censors 
are found in cities outside the province of Bithynia, but 
we do not know whether they had any duties in con- 
nection with the enrolment of senators. It is probable 
that selection by lot had been abandoned in the republican 
period, since it was necessary that men of wealth should 
be enrolled. Hadrian wrote to the magistrates and senate 
of Ephesus, requesting that his friend Erastus be admitted 
to the senate. He agreed to pay the summa honoraria 
required from new members if the official scrutiny of the 
candidate proved satisfactory 3 . It would seem as if ap- 
pointments were made at the time when the senate (?) 
was called together to elect the magistrates for the coming 
year. Distinguished actors and athletes were often re- 

1 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 79, 80, 114, 115. 

2 Chapot, op. cit. 195/1 3 No. 85. 

[ 76 ] 


warded by being admitted as honorary senators. In the 
golden age of Greek democracy a senator held office for 
a year only, but with the development of oligarchy, it is 
probable that longer terms became the rule. Life-mem- 
bership may have been introduced soon after, if not before, 
the cities came under Roman rule. In the later empire 
membership in the senate became hereditary. 

In a number of cities we find other organizations acting 
with the senate and assembly, especially in adopting 
honorary decrees. At Athens the council of the Areo- 
pagus was revived and attained great influence. In the 
Asiatic cities the gerusia, the j/e'oi, the conventus of Roman 
citizens, the trade-guilds, and even villages united with 
the city to do honor to benefactors. The nature of the 
gerusiae is disputed. Their functions were not always 
political, and in some cities they appear to have been 
purely social or religious organizations 1 . The Roman 
citizens resident in Greek cities usually united in a guild 
and held themselves aloof from local affairs 2 . They were 
probably exempt from magistracies and liturgies and 
rarely held such offices. They were usually free from the 
jurisdiction of the local courts. Their privileged position, 
however, was destroyed by Caracalla, who gave Roman 
citizenship to the provincials. The guilds of the various 
trades were not encouraged by the earlier emperors. 
Trajan had forbidden all associations of this kind fearing 
that they might become centres of political agitation and 
disaffection 3 . In the second and third centuries, however, 
these organizations were widely established. 

An extraordinary variety of titles may be found in the 
magistracies of the Greek cities, and no uniformity was 
attained or desired by the imperial government 4 . Many 

1 Chapot, op. cit. 216 /. 2 Ibid. i86jf. Ath. Mitth. 16, \\\ff. 

3 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 34, 96. 

4 Owing to the difficulty of distinguishing between magistracies and 
liturgies we have not attempted to classify the different offices in the Greek 
cities; cf. indices to 7G.; Cagnat, IGRR.; Liebenam, op. cit. 539^. 

[ 77 ] 


of the offices, however, were modified under Roman rule. 
For example, the strategus became an important official 
although he had long since lost all trace of military power, 
and with the increasing importance of the senate the 
secretaryship of this body rose into prominence. In many 
eastern cities a board of magistrates (KOLVOV rS*v apyovrav) 
is found 1 . This usually consisted of the generals (who are 
sometimes identified with the archons), the archons, and 
the secretary. These annual officials were dominated by 
the senate, and their powers were limited by the supervision 
of the provincial governors and of imperial agents, 
especially the curator reipublicae and the defensor. We have 
traced elsewhere the decline of the local magistracies 
under the pressure of the imperial bureaucracy. In the 
late empire the curator rei publicae was replaced by the 
Trarrjp TTJS TroXecos 2 . In the fourth and fifth centuries 
the office of defensor (e^Si/cos) attained great importance 
in municipal government. By this time the traditional 
magistracies had either disappeared or had become mere 

Election by lot or by popular vote had probably ceased 
soon after the Roman occupation, if not before 3 . For the 
most part officials seem to have been elected by the senate 4 . 
There is no evidence that the cursus honorum, required in 
the West, was followed in the East, and the law, enunci- 
ated by Paulus, that decurions only should be elected to 
public office, does not seem to have been applied to Greek 

1 Levy, Rev. d. St.grec. \^ (1899), 264, 268^. 

2 Declareuil, Quelques problemes d'histoire des institutions municipals au 
temps de l y Empire romain, 269 ff. 

8 For a late example of the lot, cf. Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 259. For a priest- 
hood, cf. Ditt. Or. Gr. 494. 

4 Cod. TA. 12. 5. r (326). Election to office seems to have been regu- 
lated by the provincial edict and the lex provinciae; cf. no. 34; Cicero, ad 
Att. 6. I. 1 5 ; Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 79. For the dpx<*tpm'a of the senate, cf. 
no. 117; of the ecctesia, cf. Journ. Hell. Studies, 15 (1895), 118; 17 
(1897), 411; B.C.H. 12 (1888), 17; Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 649. 

[ 78 ] 


cities 1 . Women were not infrequently named for office. 
In such cases it is unlikely that they exercised the duties 
of the magistracy, but were content with making a 
generous contribution towards the expenses attached to 
the position. The summa honoraria was usually exacted 
from magistrates on entering upon the duties of their 
office 2 . 

In the cities of the Orient the system of liturgies was 
one of their most characteristic features, and here it was 
developed to its fullest extent as a regular part of the civic 
administration. In his discussion of magistracies and 
liturgies Aristotle observed the varying practice of 
different cities, and regarded the distinction between the 
two kinds of public service as largely an academic matter 3 . 
This is especially true in the case of the more important 
liturgies, such as the priesthoods, the choregia, and the 
gymnasiarchy. In many cases the liturgies and the magis- 
tracies cannot be distinguished. Aristotle called the 
humbler duties eVi/xeXetcu or Stcucoi/uu. These terms 
do not appear in the inscriptions, but they correspond in 
general to the Latin curae, and are described in the Codes 
and Digest as munera. In one case we find liturgies 
classified as /SoiAcuriKac and S^/zoriKat' 4 . These terms 
are not defined, and it is possible that the former refer to 
magistracies. Under Roman administration the appoint- 
ment to liturgies was probably made in the local senates 5 . 
In a few cases liturgies were undertaken voluntarily, and 
sometimes endowments were provided by wealthy citizens 
to meet the expenses of a particular service. The priest- 
hoods, in a few instances, were sold to the highest bidder 6 . 
As new liturgies were devised from time to time, especially 
in the imperial service, uniform regulations were applied 

1 Dig. 50. 2. 7; 50.4. n. 2 Chapot, op. clt. 

3 Aristotle, Politics, 6. 12. 2. 4 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 623. 

5 This, at least, was the rule in the third century; cf. Cod. J. 10. 32. 2. 

6 Bischoff, Kauf und ferkauf von Priestertiimern bei den Griechen^ RA. 
Mus. 54 (1899), 9/1; cf. Otto, Hermes, 44 (1909), 594^. 

[ 79 1 


to them throughout the empire. Ultimately the older 
municipal liturgies and the magistracies, which had vir- 
tually become liturgies, came under imperial regulation, 
and all were governed by uniform principles. 

The right of coining gold was forbidden, but in a few 
instances silver coins were struck under imperial super- 
vision. Permission to issue bronze or token-money was 
freely granted in the East. The exchange of the local coins 
for foreign money was a municipal monopoly, and some 
revenue was derived therefrom 1 . When the local mints 
were abolished by Aurelian, this source of income ceased. 

The relation of the provincial governors to the municipal 
administration cannot be definitely determined. The state- 
ment of Strabo that most provincial cities were governed 
by edict is doubtless exaggerated, but it is evident that the 
governor had the right to interfere in the administration 
of the civitates stipendiariae at any time, and that the 
privileges of free states were not always regarded by un- 
scrupulous officials 2 . Cicero, who was fairly conscientious 
in his administration of Cilicia, devoted himself to lessen- 
ing the expenses of the municipalities, to correcting the 
license of civic officials, and to the administration of 
justice. He delighted the cities by restoring to them their 
autonomia^ which former governors had apparently taken 
away. He incurred the ill-will of Appius by restricting 
the embassies which the provincials sent to Rome with 
decrees in honor of their departing governor. Under the 
republic most questions concerning the internal adminis- 
tration of the province were decided by the governor with- 
out consulting Rome. Under the empire, as is shown by 
the correspondence of Pliny, paternalism had developed. 
While minor problems were referred to the emperor for 
decision, it is evident that the provincial governor still 
retained considerable power. All appeals were submitted 
to him before they were allowed to go to Rome. Not 

1 Nos. 8 1, 133, 199. 

2 Marquardt, op. cit. r. 85/5 Chapot, op. cit. 


infrequently decrees of the municipalities were presented 
for approval or for veto, and it is probable that no city 
could engage in any important outlay of public money 
without securing the approval of the governor 1 . In the 
third and fourth centuries the duties of the imperial 
legates were probably closely defined in the writings of 
the jurists, but of these only fragments are now extant. 

The civic rivalries, peculiar to Asiatic towns, may have 
served to divert the attention of the provincials from the 
loss of political freedom. The honor of preeminence in 
rank and the privilege of the neocorate were eagerly 
sought 2 . While the imperial government permitted this 
rivalry, it was costly to the cities, because local pride led 
them to indulge in extravagant expenditures upon public 
buildings, games, and festivals in their efforts to outdo 
their neighbors. When this extravagance was combined 
with an inefficient and corrupt oligarchical government, 
many cities were reduced to serious financial straits. As 
a result the appointment of special commissioners, such 
as the curator and the corrector^ to regulate the administra- 
tion of provincial cities became a common practice in the 
second century. The influence of these officials in the 
history of the municipalities has been traced elsewhere 3 . 

Although the Romans found in the East a fully deve- 
loped legal system which had a profound influence in 
modifying their own jurisprudence, yet the use of Roman 
law gradually prevailed. This was due to the influence of 
the provincial edict and of the provincial assizes, at which 
the governor presided and dispensed justice in accordance 
with Roman juristic principles. The extension of Roman 
citizenship, especially by Caracalla, must have increased 
the use of Roman law, but the Greek elements in the 
Syrian Code of the fifth century and in the Egyptian 
papyri of the Byzantine age show that the native law never 

1 Nos. 69, 71, 80, 98, 99, 114. 2 Chapot, op. cit. *?>(>/. 

3 C/. pp. 90^. 

AMA [ 8l ] 6 


wholly disappeared 1 . The supremacy of Roman law may 
be due, in part, to the fact that advancement in the legal 
profession depended upon a knowledge of Roman juris- 
prudence, and for this reason the scientific study of Greek 
law received little attention in the schools. 

The evidence for the administration of law in the 
eastern cities is scanty. A few cities had the right to try 
cases which arose between Romans and civilians, but there 
is no evidence that they retained this privilege beyond the 
age of Augustus 2 . The courts instituted by the governor 
were held according to a fixed circuit, and were open to 
provincials as well as to Romans. Plutarch rebuked the 
Greeks for abandoning their local courts in favor of those 
held by the praetor 3 . The governor's court, however, 
could only take cognizance of a small proportion of the 
cases arising in a large and busy province, and the local 
courts must have retained jurisdiction over minor cases 
until late in the empire. The right of cities to use their 
native law was probably determined by the lex provinciae^ 
but the privilege could be withheld or restored by the 
governor, or the senate, or the emperor. For example, 
Cicero restored autonomia to the Cilician cities, and Chios 
was granted the right to use her own laws and courts by 
the senate 4 . The question as to the administration of law 
in those cities which did not possess autonomy cannot be 
definitely decided 5 . Probably all cases involving sums 
of money in excess of a certain minimum were referred to 
the governor's court; regulations of this kind are found in 
western charters. The powers of the local courts were 
weakened by the appointment of the curator rei publicae, 
who exercised judicial authority. The subdivision of the 
provinces under Diocletian and the separation of the civil 

1 Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Folksrecht, 313^.; Grundzuge (Juristischer 
TV//), I. Introduction. 

2 No. 40. 3 Plutarch, reip. ger. praec. 19. 

4 ad Att. 6. i. 15; no. 40. 

5 Marquardt, op. cit. I. 78; Chapot, op. cit. 



and military powers gave the governor greater opportunity 
to supervise the administration of justice. This is indicated 
by the fact that he is usually styled -praeses or iudex in the 
juristic literature of the period. His power to appoint 
indices pedanei to deal with minor offences implies that the 
municipal courts were no longer of any importance 1 . 

Since we have described the liturgies and magistracies 
of Egyptian cities in another chapter 2 , we need only out- 
line the development of their municipal system at this 
point. In the Ptolemaic period there were only three 
Greek cities, Alexandria, Naucratis, and Ptolemais, and 
of their organization little is known. The remainder of 
Egypt was divided into administrative districts called 
nomes, the units of which were village-communities. The 
Romans adopted the Ptolemaic system in its main out- 
lines. Hadrian was the first emperor to found a city in 
this part of the empire, and he thus set a precedent for 
future emperors in recognizing the fact that the Egyptians 
were capable of self-government. Early in the third cen- 
tury Septimius Severus gave to the capital of each nome 
a senate whose members not only bore the responsibility 
of administration, but also assumed the liabilities for the 
collection of the tribute. The senate thus created consisted 
of members who held office for life. The magistracies 
differed from those in the western cities in that the in- 
cumbents, apparently, did not have to be chosen from the 
senate. At first the nome was not regarded as the territory 
of the city, but in the course of time the responsibility of 
governing it and collecting the revenues therefrom was 
transferred to the city. By the beginning of the fourth 
century the Egyptian municipalities were brought into 
conformity with the system which prevailed in other parts 
of the empire. 

i Cod. J. 3. 3. 2. 2 Cf. pp. 

[ 83 ] 


IN the regal period of Roman history the king exercised 
legislative, judicial, and religious powers. When the 
republican form of government was created, these 
functions were transferred to several magistrates whose 
offices were appropriately called honores. As for the citizen, 
the most important duty which he owed to the com- 
munity was the defense of its lands and flocks. This was 
a munus in the true sense of the word, and it is not strange 
that the same term should have been applied to any service 
rendered to the community, when the needs of society 
became more numerous 2 . 

While the development of Greek and Roman cities 
followed the same general lines, there was great diversity 
in matters of detail, and it would be difficult to discover 
a definition of honores and munera applicable to all periods 
or to all cities of the Roman empire. Callistratus, the 
Roman jurist, defined a municipal magistracy as an admini- 
strative office in the cursus honorum which might or might 
not involve the incumbent in personal expense. The liturgy 
differed only in the fact that it carried with it the right to 
spend money without receiving the distinction of an official 
title 3 . Callistratus probably lived in the third or early 
fourth century, when it was evident that the distinction 
between magistracy and liturgy rested largely on ancient 
tradition. In fact, many liturgies in Greek cities carried 
the title of apxrf although they were in no sense regarded 
as magistracies. 

1 The best treatment of this subject is found in Kuhn, Die stadt. u. 
biirgerL Verfassung d. rom. Reichs, 7 ff.\ cf. Houdoy, Le droit municipal \ 

2 The Greek term corresponding to honor is apx 1 ?- Munera is repre- 
sented by Actrovpyia or l7Tifji\La. 3 Dig. 50. 4. 14. 

[ 84 ] 


In Rome the cursus honorum was fixed by law, and 
municipal charters in the West followed the Roman system 
in general outline with minor variations in detail. The 
Greek cities inherited a varied and complicated adminis- 
trative machinery from the past, and the Romans made 
few changes in outward form. The system of popular 
election gave way to a more oligarchic method in Roman 
times, and some of the magistracies were gradually 
modified 1 . Even the oriental cities founded by Roman 
generals or governors followed Greek patterns in regard to 
magistracies, except in the case of a few early colonial 

Under the earlier western charters municipal magis- 
trates were chosen by the residents voting in comitia or 
tribes 2 . If candidates did not present themselves in 
sufficient numbers, nominations were made by the magis- 
trate who presided over the election. Such nominees 
had each the right of nominating another. In later times, 
when public office became undesirable because of the 
heavy expense attached to it, the outgoing magistrate 
nominated his successor, or, if he failed to do so, the pro- 
vincial governor presented a name to the curia which then 
made the election by formal vote 3 . It is not clear when the 
election was transferred from the people to the curia. In 
the fourth century only a few African towns elected their 
magistrates by popular vote 4 . As oligarchical tendencies 
developed, plebeians were barred from honors, and at the 
beginning of the third century only decurions were 
eligible for public office 6 . It is probable that the method 
of popular election was discontinued when this qualifica- 
tion was introduced, or soon thereafter. Apparently some 

1 For example the (TTparrjyos became an important magistrate in some 
Greek cities under Roman rule, although the office no longer carried 
military power. 

2 No. 65, chapp. 51-54- 3 Dig. 49. 4. i, 3. 

4 Cod. TA. 12. 5. i. 

5 Dig. 50. 2. 7. There are a few exceptions, e.g. Cod. J. 10. 44. 2 
provides for a citizen holding office without being a decurion. 


system of rotation was now followed, and nominations 
were made in order of seniority with due regard to the 
financial standing of the members of the curia* 1 . Magis- 
trates entrusted with the administration of public funds 
were required to furnish bondsmen, whom the munici- 
pality held responsible for their candidate. The sureties 
were examined by a third party, who also shared the 
liability of the bondsmen if he approved their securities 2 . 
In magistracies shared by two or more there was always 
joint responsibility, unless the contrary was stipulated in 
the nomination 3 . When a candidate refused to discharge 
the duties of the office to which he was elected, his bonds- 
men and nominators were liable for his obligations. The 
governor, however, had the power to compel a magistrate 
to fulfil his duties 4 . If he sought to escape office by flight, 
his property was surrendered to his successor; and if the 
fugitive was brought back, he was punished by being 
compelled to serve two years instead of one 5 . Any nominee 
had the right of appeal to the governor. Until a decision 
was rendered, his colleague held office alone. If both 
appealed, an interim appointment was made, but if the 
city suffered any loss, the candidate who appealed without 
just cause was held responsible 6 . 

The qualifications of candidates varied in different 
localities and in different periods. The Julian law fixed 
the minimum age for magistrates in Italian cities at thirty, 
although concessions were made to those who had served 
a certain term in the army 7 . Pompey had previously 
established the same minimum in Bithynian cities, but 
his law was modified by Augustus, who permitted can- 
didates to enter the minor offices at twenty-five, and this 

1 This seems to be implied in Dig. 50. 2. 7; 50. 4. 6, 14. 

2 No. 65, chap. 59; Dig. 50. I. 15; Cod. J. II. 34. I, 2; n. 35. i; 
II. 36. i. 

3 Dig. 50. i. II. 4 Ibid. 50. 4. 9. 
5 Cod. Tk. 12. I. 16 (329). 6 Dig. 49. I. 21. 
7 No. 24. 

[ 86 ] 


appears to have become the universal practice in the third 
century 1 . In a few cases minors were elected to magis- 
tracies, for the proper conduct of which their parents were 
held responsible. No candidate could secure exemption 
on the plea of old age 2 . The amount of property which he 
must possess was undoubtedly determined by local con- 
ditions, since it would be impossible J:o frame a uniform 
law applicable to every city within the empire. No magis- 
trate received a salary, and the expenses of his office were 
heavy. When honors were eagerly sought, it was not 
illegal nor unusual for candidates to promise money for 
public works, games, banquets, or other entertainments, 
but it was forbidden to canvass for office by gifts or dinners 
to private individuals 3 . It was also customary for a magis- 
trate on entering office to contribute a sum of money to 
the municipal treasury. This summa honoraria seems to 
have originated as a freewill offering, but it later became 
obligatory unless waived by special enactment 4 . During 
his term of office the magistrate was also compelled by 
law to contribute to various forms of municipal welfare 5 . 
The Julian law specified that no auctioneer, beadle, or 
undertaker should hold office; and all those who were 
barred from membership in the local senate by virtue of 
their profession or because of legal disabilities were for- 
bidden to stand for a magistracy 6 , Freedmen were 
disqualified except in colonies composed of citizens of 
this class 7 . Appointments of women to magistracies were 
purely honorary, and seem to have been made chiefly in the 
East 8 . 

1 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 79, 80: Dig. 50. 4. 8; 50. 5. 2. 

2 Dig. 50. 5. 2, r. 3 No. 26. 
4 Liebenam, St. Fenv. 54^.; Cod. Th. 12. I. 169 (409). 5 No. 26. 

6 No. 24. Other reasons for disqualification are added in Dig. 50. 1.17, 
20; 50. 2. 7, 9, 12; 50. 4. 6, 7, 12, 16. For professions exempt, cf. Dig. 
50. 4. 18; 50. 5. 10. 

7 No. 24. 

8 Chapot, La prov. rom.proc. d'Asie, i 58jf.; Paris, Quatenus feminae res 
public as in Asia minore y Romanis imperantibus y attigerint; Cod. J. 10. 64. i. 


Ordinarily a magistrate was exempt from holding the 
same office twice. If, however, there was a lack of eligible 
candidates, he could be compelled to serve a second time, 
but not until five years had elapsed. In case of voluntary 
service an interval of a year was prescribed. Between 
magistracies of different rank the legal interval was three 
years 1 . If a citizen had served as an ambassador of his 
city, he could not be nominated to another office for two 
years, but Diocletian limited the application of this law 
to those who had undertaken an embassy to Rome 2 . 
Magistrates could not hold office in two cities at the same 
time. In the case of such elections the birthplace of the 
candidate determined priority 3 . 

Magistrates wore the toga praetexta, possessed the 
privilege of the fasces within their own territory, and were 
entitled to special seats in the theatre. In cities possessing 
Latin rights magistrates were granted Roman citizenship 
on completing their term of office. Not more than six 
could receive this gift in one year, but in each case, ap- 
parently, their parents, wives, children, and grandchildren 
in the male line were included 4 . During his term of office 
no liturgies could be imposed upon him, and as ex-magis- 
trate he was free from the imposition of burdens of inferior 
rank 5 . 

There is a bewildering variety of municipal offices in 
every province, and it is difficult in many instances to dis- 
tinguish between honors and liturgies 6 . The Codes use 
the general title magistrates municipales for the whole 

1 Dig. 50. I. 18; 50. 4. 14; Cod. J. 10. 41. 2. 

2 Dig. 50. 7. 9; Cod. J. 10. 41. 2; 10. 65. 3. 

3 Dig. 50. I. 17, 4. 

4 No. 64; R.E. s.v. Jus Latii. 

5 Dig. 50. 4. 10; Cod. J. 10. 43. 2. 

6 Chapot, op. cit. 231^.; Preisigke, Stddtische Eeamtenwesen im rb'mis- 
chen Aegypten, 1 1 ; for different titles of municipal magistrates, see indices 
to the corpora of Greek and Latin inscriptions, Dessau, and Cagnat, IGRR. 
s.v. magistratus municipales. Cf. Liebenam, St. Verw. 279^.; Prentice, 
Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. 43, 1 

[ 88 ] 


empire and never specify the offices in detail. In the 
common type of western municipality we find duumvirs, 
aediles, and quaestors ranking in the order named. The 
principle of collegiality was followed in most magistracies, 
but when the emperor was elected to any municipal office, 
he appointed a prefect who, as an imperial agent, divided 
his authority with no one 1 . In case of an interregnum the 
local senate could appoint a prefect who had dictatorial 
power 2 . In the third century the quaestor and aedile are 
seldom found, and the latter office was regarded as a 
liturgy in many cities 3 . 

In Egypt the municipal form of government did not 
develop until the third century, and in this period the 
liturgies can be distinguished from magistracies only 
with great difficulty. Municipal offices were divided into 
three classes, and a citizen might hold the different offices 
in each class without observing any rule of seniority 4 . 
Appointments to municipal magistracies were apparently 
made in the local senate in conjunction with the prytanis. 
At the end of the third century we find nominations made 
by outgoing magistrates or by the senate as a body 5 . 
Peculiar to Egypt is the plan of appointing supervisors for 
the newly elected magistrate, apparently to prevent his 
escape by flight from the burdens of his office 6 . A nominee 
might avoid office by offering to surrender his property 
to his nominators. In such cases the nominee transmitted 
his offer to the prefect, who, if he gave his approval, in- 
structed the strategus to see that the appellant suffered 
no hurt nor loss of status during the period while his 
property was being administered by the nominators. 

1 Cf. pp. 62 ff. 

2 Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, p. 88. A magistrate absent from office 
more than a day nominated a prefect in his place. 

3 Dig. 50. 4. 1 8. 

4 Preisigke, op. clt.\ Jouguet, Fie munic. 2()zff.\ no. 181. 

5 No. 203. 

6 No. 203. This is probably a substitute for the cautio usually required. 

[ 89 1 


Apparently the law permitted them to devote not more 
than two-thirds of the revenue to defray the expense of the 
magistracy and the remainder was returned to the owner. 
Even after the prefect had given his consent to the 
surrender of the property, the local senate apparently had 
the privilege of rejecting the offer and compelling the 
nominee to accept office 1 . In other respects also the pro- 
cedure in Egypt seems to have differed from that in the 
provinces. For example, citizens who were not members 
of the senate were eligible for office much later than was 
customary in the rest of the empire. 

In the eastern provinces magistrates were usually 
appointed by the local senate at a meeting specially devoted 
to that purpose 2 . Little is known about methods of 
nomination or qualifications, but it is probable that old 
customs survived, for we find many of the ancient magis- 
tracies still existing in the Greek cities until late in the 
Christian era 3 . There was, however, a tendency towards 
uniformity in all parts of the empire especially after Roman 
citizenship had been extended to all free subjects by Cara- 
calla. No distinction is made between the East and the 
West in the laws recorded in the Digest and Codes, but 
the jurists were not concerned with local peculiarities and 
customs, and it would be unsafe to assume that local 
privileges and customs did not persist. 

The curator rei publicae and the defensor civitatis held 
offices which were not regarded as municipal honores, but 
as curae. Their importance in civic government is such 
that they should be mentioned here. The curator was first 

1 No. 198. For the procedure in a metropolis before the introduction 
of the municipal system, cf. no. 181 and pp. 2%ff. 

2 No. 34. 

3 There is no evidence that the Greek cities were subject to the law of 
Antoninus which required that magistracies should be held according to a 
fixed cursus (Dig. 50. 4. n). The inscriptions from eastern cities record 
honors and liturgies indiscriminately, and the classification of the various 
kinds of public duties varied from city to city (cf. Aristotle, Politics, 4. 

[ 90 ] 


appointed in the reign of Trajan as an imperial agent 
whose chief duty was the supervision of the financial 
administration of the municipality to which he was at- 
tached 1 . In some cases his jurisdiction extended over 
several towns. At first he was chosen from the senatorial 
or equestrian ranks, although men of humbler position 
sometimes filled the office. In the third century he was 
chosen from the members of the curia by the votes of his 
fellow-senators, and his election was ratified by the em- 
peror. Constantine permitted no one to be a candidate 
until he had performed all his civic liturgies, and he 
cancelled all appointments gained by corrupt practices. 
In the Greek cities the curator was known as Xoyiorrrjs and 
in the fourth century his duties were taken over by the 
Trarrjp rrjs TroXecus. The latter official was elected by the 
bishop, the primates^ and the possessores in the reign of 
Justinian. The bishop and five primates had the power to 
depose their candidate if, in their annual survey, they 
found his administration unsatisfactory 2 . 

Since the curator was an imperial appointment, the 
principle of collegiality was never applied to the office, 
even when it became in form a municipal magistracy. 
Nothing can be determined about the length of appoint- 
ment except that it was not limited to one year and re- 
appointments were not forbidden 3 . In some cases the 
office was combined with other imperial duties. While it 
is probable that many cities came under the jurisdiction of 
the curator, the record of the office on stone is com- 
paratively rare, and in very few cities do we find the name 
of more than one, although there must have been a 

1 Liebenam, PhlloL 56 (i 897), 290^"., gives a full treatment of this office. 
Cf. R.E. s.v. curator. 

2 Justinian, Novellae, 128. 16; Declareuil, Quelques problemes d'histoire 
des institutions municipales au temps de l y Empire romain> 2j6ff. 

3 At Timgad three curatores rei publicae are recorded between 360 and 
367 (CIL. vin, 2387, 2388, 2403), and their term could not have been 
longer than five years in any case. An inscription published in B.C.H. 17 
(1893), 98, records a term often years. 

[ 9' 1 


succession of curatores when once a city had come under 
their control 1 . 

Since the curator controlled the municipal revenues, 
and had the power to veto municipal legislation, his 
appointment dealt a serious blow to the development of 
the principle of local self-government 2 . When the em- 
perors transferred the election to the curiae, the power of 
the landed proprietors who constituted the senates was 
greatly increased, as they were able to choose a candidate 
favorable to their own interests. The corrupt administra- 
tion of the curatores led to such abuses that the imperial 
government was led to create a new office to care for the 
interests of the common people. 

The defensor civitatis (e/cSi/cos) is found in Egypt in the 
first half of the fourth century. Apparently the office was 
not established in other parts of the empire before 364 
when it appears in Illyria 3 . At this time the appointments 
were made by the pretorian prefect and confirmed by the 
emperor. In 387 the nominations were made by the local 
curiae subject to the emperor's approval 4 . Under Hono- 
rius the bishop, clergy, honorati, possessores, and curiales 
chose the defensor^. Majorian gave the plebeians a voice 
in the election, and Justinian made the office a municipal 
liturgy imposed for a term of two years in rotation from 
an album of suitable candidates 6 . 

While the duties of the defensor were ill-defined at first, 
the office soon acquired great prestige, and overshadowed 
that of the curator and other magistrates. It was ap- 
parently conceived as an imperial patrocinium to offset 
the growth of private patronage, which was undermining 
state and civic authority and imposing serious hardships 

1 de Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. s.v. curator. 

2 Dig. 39. 2. 46; 50. 8. 2, 5, n; 50. 9. 4. His judicial powers were 
limited (Cod. J. i. 54. 3 (239)). 

3 P. Oxy. 901; Cod. Th. i. 29. i (364). Cf. ibid. 12. i. 20 (381). 

* Cod. Tk. i. 29. i (364), 3 (368), 6 (387). 

* Cod.J. i. 55.8(409). 

6 Majorian, Novel/ae, 3. i; Justinian, Novellae, 15. 

[ 92 ] 


on citizens who had no other means of protecting them- 
selves against the evils of the age. The de/ensor was 
especially charged with the protection of the lower orders 
against illegal exactions and other abuses. He supervised 
the revision of the tax lists and the collection of taxes from 
the smaller landowners. Municipal property was under 
his jurisdiction and he kept the public records (acta). At 
first he exercised no police or judiciary power except in 
minor cases, but his authority was extended by various 
rescripts until he had jurisdiction in civil cases up to 300 
solidi. These functions brought the defensorinto all branches 
of municipal administration and the other magistracies 
declined greatly in importance. In the fifth century he 
appears to have exercised sole power in many cities. Un- 
fortunately the development of the office of defensor 
followed the same lines as that of the curator and instead 
of defending the interests of the common people, he became 
their oppressor 1 . 

As the magistrates administered civil affairs, so the 
religious life of the community was in the charge of priests 
of the local and imperial cults, and these priesthoods were 
sometimes regarded as liturgies, sometimes as honores 2 . 
Usually those citizens were elected to priesthoods who 
had already discharged their municipal obligations, and 
they were thus exempt from liturgies of a personal 
character, but their patrimony remained liable to the 
customary charges. While priests were usually chosen by 
election or cooptation, the honor was in some cases 
hereditary, in others it was sold to the highest bidder. 
The term of service was annual, or for a prescribed period, 
or for life 3 . After Christianity was officially recognized, 
the pagan cults began to fall into disrepute, and their 
priesthoods were finally abolished. 

1 R.E. s.v. defensor. 

2 The codes vary in their classification of priesthoods. Cf. Cod. Th. 12.1. 
75 (370,77 (372), 103 (383). 

3 Liebenam, St. Ferw. 342^. 

[ 93 ] 


In the fourth century the Codes give to the principals 
(primarii^ primates , summates), or leading men of the local 
curiae^ a position which seems to have been regarded as 
a virtual honor 1 . As the magistracies weakened or dis- 
appeared, the principales acquired administrative power, 
and they are grouped sometimes with the decurions, 
sometimes with the defensor, in municipal duties. The title 
was conferred in some cases by a vote of the senate, and 
was even granted to minors, although it was usually re- 
served for those who had satisfied all their municipal 
obligations. The TrpoTroXtrevo/xe^ot of Egypt are probably 
the eastern equivalent of the principales. The primus curiae 
or the chief member of the senate received special honors 
and privileges, and on the fulfilment of certain conditions 
was eligible for the imperial rank of comes primi ordinis. 

Next to the municipal magistracies, the liturgies or 
munera were the most important factor in carrying on the 
civic organization. The imposition of a direct tax on the 
commonwealth had never been popular in democratic 
states and the liturgy was resorted to in supplementing 
municipal revenues. The extension and development of 
this method of administration is one of the most important 
features of municipal history in the Roman empire. 

Liturgies (munera publica) were classified as munera 
personalia and munera patrimoniorum. Under the latter 
might be placed those called munera locorum 2 . The former 
did not require the expenditure of money, while the 
patrimonial liturgies were virtually a form of taxation on 
the estate of the incumbent. Certain liturgies were called 
munera mixta^. The oriental decaprotia is an example of 
this class, for those who undertook the office were re- 
sponsible for the payment of the imperial tribute from 
their municipality. If the full assessment was paid by the 
citizens, the liturgy involved no expense, but if the deca- 
proti had to make up the deficit, the liturgy became a 

1 Declareuil, op. cit. 164^. 2 Dig. 50. 4. 6, 14. 

3 Dig. 50.4. 1 8. 

[ 94 ] 


munus patrimoniorum. Extraordinary liturgies (munera 
extraordinaria) were devised to meet special needs, par- 
ticularly in the imperial service, and ultimately many of 
this class were incorporated in the regular burdens of 
the municipality as munera personalia or patrimoniorum. 
In the Greek cities we sometimes find liturgies described 
as SrjfjLOTLKai and /3ouXeim/cai, which may imply that 
members of the senate were not called upon to undertake 
liturgies beneath their station, or those which called for 
the performance of menia 1 labor 1 . 

The classification of liturgies varied naturally in different 
cities and in different periods. When there was plenty of 
money in the municipal treasury, the expense of most 
liturgies could be met from public funds, but in times of 
economic depression there was a tendency to transfer 
personal liturgies to charges on estates. The provincial 
governor or emperor often made such changes in the 
classification if the municipality refused to act 2 . In the 
third century the laws governing munera were framed by 
the imperial bureaus, and in the case of liturgies in the 
imperial service the regulations were applied uniformly 
throughout the empire. It is probable that municipal 
liturgies of all kinds were ultimately regulated by universal 

Personal liturgies are described in the Codes and Digest 
as munera personalia, corporalia, or sordida. It is probable 
that the last-mentioned liturgies required manual labor, 
since women and decurions were excused therefrom 3 . The 
charter of Urso provided that not more than five days' 
labor could be required from any property-holder within 
the bounds of the colony 4 . A similar law is found in Egypt 
regulating the amount of labor to be given annually by the 
peasant to ditches and dykes 5 . In the fourth century no 
distinction seems to be drawn between munera personalia 

1 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 623. 2 Cod. J. 10. 42. 4. 

3 Dig. 50. i. 17; 50. i. 22, 37, 38; 50. 4. 3, 3. 

'* No. 26. 5 Oertel, Die Liturgie, 

[ 95 ] 


and sordida. In his treatise on liturgies Arcadius Charisius 
included under munera personalia such duties as the care 
of aqueducts, temples, archives, and public buildings, the 
heating of public baths, the purchase of grain and oil, 
the management of civic revenues, the collection of the 
annona^ and the convoying of recruits, horses, and other 
beasts of burden for the imperial service. Irenarchs (police 
officials), limenarchs (harbor masters), public advocates, 
local judges, ambassadors, scribes, and other minor 
officials discharged liturgies of this class 1 . Other duties, 
which, in different cities, had been recognized by custom 
as personal charges, may be added to this list. 

Charges on estates (munera pair imoniorum or pecuniarid) 
included such liturgies as the holding of the gymnasi- 
archy, or of priesthoods, the provision of transport for 
the imperial service, the sheltering of troops, and the per- 
formance of any public duty for which the incumbent 
had to provide funds from his private means 2 . 

Certain liturgies were classified and apparently held 
according to a fixed cursus. When the series was once com- 
pleted, a citizen could not be compelled to discharge 
further obligations in that series unless there was a lack 
of other candidates 3 . Laws were also devised determining 
the intervals which should elapse between the different 
liturgies, but in times of stress evasions are known to 
have been frequent 4 . 

Every resident of the municipality could be required to 
undertake his share of the liturgies unless he was excused 
by lav/. Aliens were also subject to the liturgies of their 

1 Dig. 50.4. 1 8. 

2 These munera were also classified according as the owner of an estate 
was a citizen of the municipality or an alien. In the latter case the munus 
was called an intributto (Dig. 50. 4. 6), and was apparently a direct tax 
levied on the owner (Dig. 50. 4. 18, 25). 

3 Dig. 50. 4. 3, 15; Cod. J. 10. 42. i ; 10. 43. 3. While the usual term 
was annual, shorter periods are known; cf. Atken. Mitth. 8, 318, for four- 
month terms at Tralles. 

4 Cod. J. 10. 41. i; Oertel, op. cit. 388^.; nos. 180, 194, 203. 

[ 96 ] 


native city in addition to those of the city in which they 
resided. If, however, they lived outside the town limits, 
they were exempt from regular munera, but their property 
was subjected to a special tax called intributio^. It is 
probable that the laws regulating the liturgies of aliens 
were devised to prevent the migration of wealthy citizens 
from communities where such burdens were heavy to 
more favored municipalities such as Roman colonies, or 
federated states which enjoyed special privileges or were 
subject to lighter taxation. Citizenship in such cities 
would be eagerly sought after and the right of conferring 
it must have been closely guarded. In Tyra decrees of 
naturalization were required to be submitted to the 
governor for approval and we may infer that this city 
enjoyed certain privileges which made citizenship in it 
desirable 2 . In later times the rigid application of the laws 
regarding alien residents made it practically impossible 
for anyone to reside elsewhere than in his place of birth. 
The law, however, might be evaded by adoption. To pre- 
vent this practice an adopted son was required to perform 
the liturgies of his native city as well as of his new home, 
and on being emancipated he ceased to be a citizen of his 
adopted city 3 . On the other hand, when a woman married 
a citizen of another city, she became a resident of that city, 
and was under no obligation to perform the munera patri- 
moniorum to which her estate might be subjected in her 
native place, nor could her dowry be reckoned as part of 
her husband's property 4 . In the fourth century this law 
was modified in the case of heiresses of curial estates 5 . 

When public funds were appropriated for the discharge 
of municipal liturgies, the appointee was required to pro- 

1 Dig. 50. i. 29, 35; 50. 4. 6; cf. 50. 4. 18, 21 ff. 

2 No. 130. Cf. Cass. Dio, 54. 7, where Augustus is said to have deprived 
the Athenians of the right of granting citizenship because of the abuse of the 

3 Dig. 50. i. 15, 16. 4 Dig. 50. r. 21. 37, 38. 
5 Cod. Th. 12. i. 124(392). 

AMA [ 97 ] 7 


vide bondsmen as sureties for the proper fulfilment of his 
duties 1 . If he died before the end of his term, the obliga- 
tion fell on his heirs 2 . In cases of mal-administration the 
nominator and bondsmen were liable for the obligations 
of the defaulter 3 * Sometimes, especially in the case of im- 
perial liturgies, the whole curia was held responsible 4 . It 
may be doubted whether the curia was responsible as a 
corporate body for all candidates nominated by it in 
regular session, but where a large number of liturgies were 
imposed, it is probable that every member was involved 
either as a candidate, or as nominator, or as surety. In 
those cases where the liturgy was shared by two or more, 
the principle of solidary liability was enforced unless it was 
stipulated otherwise in the appointment 5 . 

Outside Egypt we find various methods of appoint- 
ment to liturgies. Sometimes the emperor or the provincial 
governor sent nominations to the curia^ or made the ap- 
pointment directly 6 . The curator rei publicae had power 
to act in certain cases 7 . Usually appointments were made 
by the magistrates and decurions at a regular meeting of 
the curia^ at which a quorum of two-thirds of the members 
was required by law 8 . We may suppose that, when the 
principle of liability had developed to such an extent that 
members of the senate were heavily burdened, they pre- 
ferred to escape the obligations of nomination and surety 
by allowing the appointments to pass into the hands of 
imperial officials. The financial gain, however, was far 
outweighed by the loss of independence which was 
entailed thereby. In the fifth century it is probable that 
the decurions drew up lists of citizens for each liturgy and 

1 Dig. 50. 8. n; Cod. J. 10. 70. i. 2 Dig. 50. 8. 12. 

3 Cod. J. n. 36. i, 2; ii. 37. i; Cod. Th. 12.6. i. 8,9; Dig. 50. 8.4. 

4 Cod. Th. 12.6.9(365?). 

6 Cod. J. 10. 43. i; II. 36. 2; II. 38. i ; Dig. 50. 8. 3, 12. 

6 Julian, Misopogon, 370-371; Dig. 49. 4. i, 3; 50. 5. 2, 7; Cod. Th. 
n. 16. 4 (328); Cod. J. 10. 77. i (409). 

7 Cod. J. II. 37- I- 

8 Cod. J. 10. 32. 2; 10. 72. 8; Dig. 50. i. 21; 50. 9. 3. Cf. no. 34. 

[ 98 ] 


forwarded them to the provincial governor who made the 
appointments. This at least was the method of appointing 
the irenarch according to a law of Honorius 1 . Extra- 
ordinary liturgies were assigned by the magistrates at first; 
in the fourth century by the principales^ and later by the 
governor 2 . The latter also decided appeals, although they 
were frequently carried to the emperor, and after 313 the 
imperial court decided all such questions 3 . Those who 
made illegal nominations were compelled to defray the 
expenses of the appeal 4 . 

The liturgical system in Egypt was governed by special 
laws owing to the peculiar organization of this region 5 . 
Very little is known of the system which prevailed in the 
three Ptolemaic cities, although it is probable that they 
did not differ from other Greek cities in their forms of 
administration, if they possessed public lands from which 
they derived revenues. In the rest of Egypt the Ptolemies 
forbade private ownership of land, and munera patrimo- 
niorum were consequently impossible. The Romans 
created a land-owning class and replaced the voluntary 
Greek bureaucracy with a liturgical system which was 
gradually extended throughout Egypt to apply to all but 
a few of the highest positions in the administration. The 
precise date of the introduction of the liturgical system 
cannot be determined, but it was already in existence in 
A.D. 91, and in the following century there is abundant 
evidence that liturgies were compulsory and extremely 
burdensome 6 . 

The Egyptian liturgies are usually classified as x^pt/cai 
and TToXinjcai. The former probably denote those peculiar 

1 CW. J. 10. 77. i. 2 Cod. J. 10. 46. i; Cod. Th. ir. 16.4(328). 

3 Dig. 50. 4. 4; 50. 5. 2, 7; Cod. J. 10. 32. 2; 10. 50. 3; 10. 51. 3; 

Cod. Th. 12. i. i (313). 4 Cod. J. 10. 32. 2. 

5 Jouguet, op. cit. 22jff.\ Wilcken, Grundzuge, 347 ff.\ Oertel, Die 

6 Bell, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 4 (1917), 86^.; nos. 180, 
181, 187, 189, 194. 

[ 99 ] 7-* 


to the administration of the nome and the village; the 
latter belong to the municipal administration of the cities 
and the metropolis. It is often difficult to distinguish 
between the imperial and municipal liturgies and the 
variations in the methods of appointment and appeal in 
the villages and in the metropolis at different periods make 
the study of the liturgical system in Egypt particularly 
difficult 1 . 

In the villages the nominations were made by the elders 
or, more commonly, by the secretary. The latter forwarded 
the list of nominees to the strategus^ from whose office it 
went to the epistrategus who, if there were sufficient candi- 
dates, chose by lot and made the appointments. In some 
cases the prefect made appointments 2 . The sureties of 
the nominee were responsible for the proper discharge of 
the liturgy, but in case of their failure the obligation fell 
upon the entire village 3 . After the introduction of the 
municipal system the evidence for the methods of nomi- 
nation in the villages is scanty. In some cases outgoing 
officials named their successors, in others the candidates 
were designated by the comarch who sent the list to the 
strategus for appointment. 

In the metropolis of the nome the scribe drew up the 
list of eligible candidates in consultation with the Council 
of Archons. The list was probably transmitted to the 
epistrategus through the office of the strategus. After 202 the 
nominations were probably made in the senate. A system 
of tribal rotation was followed, but if the tribal repre- 
sentatives in the senate failed to make sufficient or proper 
nominations, the duty fell upon the senate as a whole 4 . 
For extraordinary liturgies the prytanis might make ap- 
pointments, but confirmation by the senate was required 5 . 

1 J ou uet > P* c **- 98; Oertel, op. cit. Jn an unpublished papyrus in the 
Princeton collection the distinction is made 


2 Nos. 181, 185, 198, 200; cf. pp. 89^*. 3 No. 203. 

4 No. 203. 5 Cf. Wilcken, op. cit. 399^. 

[ 100 ] 


The senate seems to have had authority to make the final 
appointment for purely local liturgies. In the case of 
imperial or state liturgies the appointments seem to have 
been made from the lists forwarded from the senate to 
the epistrategus, and in some cases to the prefect 1 . Certain 
liturgies could be transferred by the incumbent to others 
by mutual agreement. In other cases any transfer or 
commutation by a money payment was strictly forbidden 2 . 

Appeals were directed to the prefect, or, more commonly, 
to the epistrategus. In some cases they were forwarded to 
the strategus, but probably he was only a medium of 
communication with the epistrategus 3 . A nominee had 
the right to surrender his property to his nominator if 
the latter was better able to perform the liturgy, and if the 
nominee claimed that his own resources were insufficient. 
Apparently the entire revenue was surrendered for the 
discharge of liturgies, whereas in magistracies only two- 
thirds of the revenue could be taken for the expenses of 
the office 4 . 

As the liturgies in the empire increased in number and 
severity, the privilege of exemption became especially 
desirable. Antoninus withdrew the right of cities to confer 
immunity (are'Xeia), except in the case of physicians, 
teachers, and philosophers, and the number of exemptions 
which a city could grant was strictly limited according to 
its rank 5 . The provincial governors exercised some 
authority in this matter until Constantine transferred all 
questions of exemption to the imperial bureaus 6 . The Codes 
contain a vast number of laws on the subject, regulating 
the grants of immunity in minute detail. It would be 

1 Jouguet, op. cit. \\off. \ nos. 172, 180, 181, 182, 187, 200. 

2 No. 181; P. Fior. 3-9, 382; BG U. 1073; P. Gtn. 73. 

3 P. Fior. 57; Wilcken, Chrcstomathie, 263; Cod. J. 10. 48. 9. 

4 Nos. 185, 198. 

5 Dig. 27. 1.6; Cod. J. 10. 47. i. It should be noted that the rescript 
of Antoninus was addressed to Asia only, but it is probable that it came to be 
applied to other provinces as well. 

6 Cod. Th. 12. i. i (313). 

C 101 ] 


impossible, within the limits of this study, to record the 
legislation in its entirety, and we shall attempt to give only 
the main outlines 1 . 

Individual citizens received the grant of immunity 
from liturgies by imperial decree. In the case of personal 
liturgies the grant was not heritable, while immunity 
from munera patrimoniorum passed to descendants in the 
male line. Any grant was revocable when the safety of 
the state was endangered 2 . 

Personal liturgies were not imposed on those suffering 
from physical disability, on minors, on those over seventy 
years of age, on women, or on parents of five or more living 
children 3 . 

Owners of estates subject to liturgies could not escape 
their obligations on any claim based on age, sickness, 
number of children, or sex. It was forbidden to commute 
the personal service required in munera patrimoniorum by 
a money payment or by providing a substitute 4 . The 
latter provision seems to have been disregarded in Egypt 
and the Orient 5 . 

1 Bks. 6, 7, 8, n, 12, 13, 1 6 in the Theodosian Code; 10-12 in the 
Justinian Code; 50 in the Digest, passim. 

2 Dig. 50. 6. i; Cod. J. 10. 48. 13 (385); Cod. Th. 10. 49. 1-3; 
ii. 16. 16 (385); Brims, 41. 

8 Dig. 50. 2. 6, 7; 50. 4. 3; 50. 5. 2, 13, 14; Cod. J. 10. 42. 7, 9; 
10. 50. 2, 3; 10. 51. 1-4; 10. 52. 2, 3; Cod. Th. 12. i. 7 (320), 19 (331), 
35 (343)5 12. 17. r (324). From these laws it may be seen that the age 
limit was reduced from 25 to 16. Oertel thinks that 14 was the lower limit 
in Egypt (pp. cit. 374). Parents often undertook liturgies in the name of a 
son who was a minor, and sometimes minors were nominated without the 
consent of the parent. In the latter case the estate of the parent could not be 
held responsible for any obligations which might be incurred by the son (Dig. 
50. 2. 6). In Rome the father of three children, in Italy the father of four, 
and in the provinces the father of five children was excused from liturgies 
(Justinian, Inst. i. 25). Special grants were sometimes made personally to 
fathers of large families (Dig. 50. 6. 6; Cod. Th. 12. i. 55 (363); Cod. J. 
10. 52. i). 

4 Dig. 50. 4. 1 6. 

6 Wilcken, C Ares torn at hie y 350; P. Fior. 57. In the fourth century 
members of the local senates who had received appointments in the im- 


The following classes of citizens were excused from 
liturgies : members of the imperial nobility, officials in the 
state bureaus, soldiers and officers in the army, veterans, 
members of guilds in the imperial service and of certain 
local guilds in the service of the municipality, or engaged 
in trades under imperial charter, teachers, physicians, 
actors, athletes, priests of pagan cults and of the Christian 
church after its recognition by Constantine, tenants on 
imperial estates (provided that their leasehold covered 
twenty-five iugera), Roman citizens resident in non-Roman 
towns previous to the edict of Caracalla 1 , and citizens of 
Alexandria and Antinoopolis resident in other towns and 
villages in Egypt. As the property of conductores of the 
imperial taxes was pledged to the fiscus as security, they 
were also exempted. Tenants of waste land who brought 
it back into cultivation were released from all extraordinary 
liturgies as also were farmers at seed-time and harvest. 

The clarissimi or members of the imperial nobility were 
the most important class of citizens who enjoyed exemption 

perial body were required to provide substitutes for the discharge of muni- 
cipal liturgies (Cod. Th. 12. i. 69(369?), 91 (3 82), 98 (382), 1 1 1 (386), 312 
(391) inter alia). 

1 Ulpian says (Dig. 50. 4. 3) that a citizen of Rome ought also to perform 
the liturgies of his domicilium. This is probably later than the Edict of 
Caracalla as the compilers of the Digest would probably not include regula- 
tions prior to that period. There are very few inscriptions which record 
liturgies of Roman citizens in non-Roman towns and these cases may be ex- 
plained as an act of voluntary generosity, or because the liturgy was held 
before the grant of citizenship was conferred. In the diplomata issued to 
veterans on their discharge, immunity was conferred upon them and their 
children, and in the single decree of the Senate which we possess conferring 
citizenship upon an alien (Bruns, 41), he was granted immunity from taxa- 
tion and all duties, and the gift was transmitted to his heirs, who would also 
be Roman citizens. In Egypt citizens of Alexandria were exempt from 
liturgies outside their native place, and since an Egyptian could not become 
a Roman citizen without being made a citizen of Alexandria first (Pliny, 
Epp. ad Trai. 5, 6), it follows that Romans enjoyed immunity in Egypt. 
The same rule undoubtedly applied in all Roman provinces, and the guilds 
of Roman citizens which are found prior to the Edict of Caracalla were 
probably formed of members of this privileged class. 

[ 103 ] 


from municipal obligations since they controlled most of the 
wealth of the community. Membership in the order was 
hereditary and, while the title was legally secured through 
imperial favor, it was often purchased fraudulently through 
the connivance of palace officials, and in some cases it was 
assumed by powerful citizens without any warrant what- 
soever. Since every accession to the order weakened the 
municipality by depriving it of citizens or estates subject 
to liturgies, the emperors were ultimately compelled to 
restrict grants of this class. In the fourth and fifth cen- 
turies elaborate legislation was devised regulating the 
elevation of decurions or members of the curial order to 
the rank of imperial nobility. In 340 the fulfilment of all 
municipal obligations was required before any senatorial 
honors were conferred 1 . Two years earlier a decree had 
been issued compelling those who had no legal claim to 
imperial honors to return to the curial order 2 . Twenty 
years later the situation in the municipalities again be- 
came serious, and all decurions who had obtained the 
rank of imperial senator were compelled to resign this 
title. A few exceptions were made, but even in these cases 
those who held the rank in question were required to 
fulfil the munera patrimoniorum upon their estates within 
the municipality or to resign the property to the curia*. 
The next step in imperial legislation was to attack the 
principle of hereditary succession. Hitherto the senatorial 
rank had been transmitted to a senator's children with all 
the privileges which it entailed. After 364 the newly 
elected senator (clarissimus) was required to leave one son 
in the curial order to discharge the obligations of the 
estate towards the municipality 4 . After 390 senatorial 
appointments no longer carried the hereditary privilege 5 . 

i Cod. Th. 12. i. 29 (340). 2 Cod. Th. 12. i. 25 (338). 

s Cod. Th. 12. 1.48(361), 58(364), 69(365), 74 (370* i" (386), 

4 Cod. Th. 12. i. 57 (364)* 9 (3 8 2). 

5 Cod. Th. 12. i. 130 (393), 160 (398). 


This law was later amended, permitting sons born after 
the appointment to inherit their father's title and privi- 
leges, while in the case of the highest class, the illustres^ 
all the sons enjoyed the right of hereditary succession 1 . 
At the same time permission was given senators to pro- 
vide substitutes to discharge municipal liturgies. In 436 
members of the curia elevated to the rank of spectabiles 
were compelled to undertake the municipal liturgies in 
addition to those imposed upon the imperial order, while 
those appointed to the higher rank of illustres were 
ordered to provide substitutes to discharge the munera 
patrimoniorum. The sons of spectabiles and illustres of 
curial origin remained in the order to which they were 
born 2 . This law must have made it impossible for residents 
in the municipality to hold municipal and imperial honors 
at the same time, but it is probable that members of the 
senatorial order found means of escaping their municipal 
obligations. Accordingly Theodosius closed the senatorial 
order to all curiales and this method of securing immunity 
from liturgies ceased 3 . 

Exemption from municipal duties was one of the privi- 
leges granted to those who held the title of perfectissimi 
or egregii, if this honor was conferred in recognition of 
public service or after all liturgies had been duly per- 
formed. Constantine ordained that this honor should no 
longer be conferred on citizens who were eligible for 
membership in their local curia 4 . 

Those engaged in imperial service abroad (absentes rei 
publicae causa) were exempt from municipal obligations 5 . 
This class of persons included the retinue of the pro- 
vincial governors, members of the imperial bureaucracy, 

1 Cod. Th. 12. i. 155 (397). 2 Cod. Th. 12. i. 187 (436). 

3 Theodosius, Novcllac, i 5. i (439), 2 (441). Zeno and Justinian gave 
immunity to curia/es only after reaching the highest offices in the imperial 
service (Cod. J. 10. 32. 64, 67). 

4 Cod. Th. 12. i.s( 3 i7);r/./*/V. 12. i. 15(327). 26 (338), 42 (354), 
44 (35 8 ); Cod. J. 12. 32. r. 

6 Dig. 4. 6. 35^.; 50. 5. 4. Cf. Cod. J. 10. 48. i, 5. 

[ '05 ] 


ambassadors to Rome or neighboring cities, and soldiers 
or officers in the army. Similar privileges were naturally 
extended to members of the palace bureaus who were 
ultimately organized on military lines 1 . The curiales 
sought to escape from their local obligations by securing 
positions in one or other of the great bureaus, and in the 
fourth century there was a constant succession of enact- 
ments forbidding their employment. The frequent adop- 
tion of such measures shows that the laws were con- 
stantly evaded. Occasionally attempts were made to seek 
out all curiales in these positions and to compel them to 
return to their cities, but evasions were always possible 
and provision was usually made whereby those who had 
served for some time or had attained a certain rank were 
allowed to remain at their posts 2 . It is, however, probable 
that the members of the bureaucracy did not always secure 
complete exemption from their municipal obligations, 
especially as the higher officials of curial origin were not 
exempt from all munera patrimoniorum*. In a few depart- 
ments the privilege of exemption was hereditary for a time 
in the case of officers of higher rank 4 . The liberality of 
emperors varied. Sometimes officials enjoyed exemption 
from certain specified liturgies, sometimes from all of 
them, and in times of stress all privileges might be sus- 
pended 5 . The laws of Zeno and Justinian gave exemption 
from municipal obligations only to those curiales who had 
attained positions of very high rank in the palace 6 . 

The laws governing the exemption of soldiers and 

1 Cf. bks 6-8 in the Theodosian Code, and bk 1 2 in the Justinian Code, 

2 Cod. Tk. 12. i. 26 (338), 31 (341), 36 (343), 44 (358), 78 (372); 
I- 12. 4 (393), 6 (398); 6. 35 passim. 

3 Cod. ara.6. 35. 1(314), 3(319)- 

4 Cod. Th. 12. i. 14 (326); cf. pp. 205^. 

5 Cod. TL6. 35. i (314), 3 (319); ii. 16. 18 (390); 6. 26. 14(407); 
Cod. J. 12. 23. i; 12. 26. 1-4; 10. 48. 11-12; 12. 19. 4; 10. 49. i (408), 

2 (445). 3 (472). 

6 Cod. J. 10. 32. 64, 67. 

[ 1 06 ] 


veterans are of interest. While soldiers were excused from 
most municipal obligations, they were liable to certain 
charges upon their estates 1 . A soldier home on furlough 
was technically liable for any liturgies which might be 
imposed 2 . When military service became hereditary, sons 
of soldiers, who did not enter the army, were compelled 
to join the curial order 3 . Veterans were given special 
privileges 4 . In the second century the Egyptian veteran 
enjoyed immunity from liturgies (on estates ?) for five 
years after his discharge 5 . In other parts of the empire 
no term is ever specified, and it is usually assumed that 
exemption was for life. It may be questioned, however, 
whether the law applying to Egypt did not extend over 
the whole empire. If a veteran entered the curia of his 
own accord, he was liable for all the liturgies of the order 
unless he had especially reserved his privilege of ex- 
emption 6 . In the third century the veterans were obliged 
to do road-work and to pay certain vectigalia and intribu- 
tiones 1 . Apparently their privileges were steadily encroached 
upon, since Constantino was compelled to confirm them 
by special laws 8 . 

Members of guilds engaged in the imperial service 
especially in the alimentation of the capital and in supply- 
ing the armies enjoyed special privileges and were 
exempt from all municipal obligations; in fact, shipowners 
were forbidden to take up the duties of a decurion in their 

1 Dig. 50. 4. 1 8; 50. 5. 7, u; 49. 1 8. 2-4. 

2 Dig. 4. 6. 34-35- 

3 Hist. Aug. Alex. Sev. 58; Cod. Th. j. 22. i (319), 4 (326); 7. i. 5 
(364); 12. i. 18 (329), 35 (343), 79 (379); Cod. J. 12. 33. 2-4. 

4 BGU.62%. 5 No. 177. 

Cod. J. 10. 44. i; Dig. 49. 1 8. 2. Loss of privilege through mis- 
conduct: Cod. Th. 7. 20. 7 (353). 

7 The testimony of Arcadius Charisius, Ulpian, and Hermogenianus 
varies, cf. Dig. 49. 18. 4; 50. 4. 18; 50. 5. n. 

8 Cod. Th. 7. 20. 2 (320), 3 (320), 6 (342), 9 (362). Apparently the 
first promises of Constantine were made under compulsion, and the veterans 
later found that there was a tendency to ignore them. 

[ 107 ] 


native cities 1 . Membership in this guild was not only 
hereditary, but also obligatory in the fourth century 2 . The 
estate of a navicularius was bound to the service of his 
order, and if he bequeathed it to anyone not a member 
of the guild, the legatee was required to assume the obliga- 
tions of the estate towards the guild by becoming a 
member 3 . On the other hand, a member of the curia 
was strictly forbidden to attempt the avoidance of his 
municipal duties by entering the guild of navicularii*. 
There was a large number of other guilds devoted to the 
imperial service, and it is probable that the rules for 
membership in these societies were ultimately brought 
into conformity with those governing the shipowners 5 . 
Besides the imperial guilds there were local corporations 
in each municipality formed for the special needs of the 
community, whose members were excused from other 
liturgies as a recompense. These guilds were under the 
control of the municipal authorities by whom their duties 
were designated. The earlier emperors discouraged the 
formation of these local societies for political reasons, but 
the ban was later removed 6 , and numerous records show 
that these organizations were widespread throughout the 
empire. A law of Honorius at the end of the fourth 
century even went so far as to order all citizens to enroll 
themselves either in the curial order or in some guild 7 . 
Constantine granted exemption from personal liturgies to 
artisans in a large number of professions, and it is prob- 

1 At first the period of immunity was five years (Dig. 50. 4. 5), but later 
immunity was conferred as long as one remained a member of his guild 
(Dig. 50. 5. 3; 50.6. 6). 

2 Cod. Th. 13. 5. 2 (315), 3 (319), ii (365), 14 (369), 19 (390), 20 
(392), 21 (392), 35 (412); Valentinian, Novellae^ 29. 

3 Cod. Tk. 13. 5. 19 (390). 4 Cod. Th. 12. i. 149 (395). 

5 Waltzing, Les corpora tions professions I les cAez les Romains\ R.E. s.v. 
collegium; Dig. 50. 6. 7. 

6 Many of these were organized by Alexander Severus (Hist. Aug. Alex. 
Sev. 33). For legislation in regard to immunity, cf. Dig. 50. 6. 6. 

7 Cod. Th. 12. i. 179 (415); cf. 7. 21. 3 (396). 

[ 108 ] 


able that they were grouped in guilds at that time 1 . 
Wealthier members of the guilds were sometimes drafted 
into the curiae, but it is probable that in the fourth century 
membership in these societies was hereditary and could not 
be resigned at will 2 . 

Physicians, teachers, and professors of philosophy were 
excused from all personal liturgies and from providing 
billets as early as the reign of Vespasian 3 . Antoninus 
divided the cities of Asia into grades, and limited the 
number in each of these professions which might be 
granted immunity by the municipal authorities according 
to the rank of the city 4 . Elementary teachers were ex- 
cluded from these privileges 5 . Instructors in civil law 
enjoyed immunity in Rome but not in the provinces, a 
law which must have had considerable importance in the 
spread of Roman jurisprudence 6 . Constantine granted 
physicians and teachers exemption from all charges, and 
this privilege was later extended to their wives and 
children 7 . Architects and members of allied professions 
were also excused from personal liturgies. Constantine 
sought to revive the architectural profession by con- 
ferring immunity on the parent as well as the student 8 . 

Priests of local and imperial cults were free from per- 
sonal liturgies, but were not excused from charges im- 
posed upon estates 9 . Their children also enjoyed the same 
privileges. In Egypt the number of exemptions granted 

1 Cod. Th. 13. 4. 2 (337); Cod. J. 10. 66. i. 

2 Cod. Th. 12. i. 96 (383); Julian, Misopogon, 368. 

3 Dig. 27. 1.6; 50. 4. 1 8; 50. q. 10; cf. ibid. 50. 5. 8, where the law- 
giver ironically remarks that philosophers, since they despise wealth, should 
not be exempt from munera patrimoniorum, or, if they desire exemption, 
they are not true philosophers. 

4 Dig. 27. I. 6; 50. 5. 8; Cod. J. 10. 47. i; 10. 53. 5. 

5 Dig. 50. 4. ii. 6 Dig. 27. i. 6, 12. 

7 Cod. Th. 13.3.1 (321), 2 (324), 3 (344), 4 (362), i 5 (393), 16 (414), 
17 (4H). 

8 Cod. Th. 13. 4. i (334), 3 (344), 4 (374); </ Dig. 50. 6. 7. 

9 Nos. 164, 178; Dig. 50. 4. 18; Cod. Th. 12. I. 21 (335); 12. 5. 2 

[ 109 ] 


to the priesthood in each district appears to have been 
limited under Roman rule 1 . A provincial priesthood could 
not be held until all local liturgies were discharged by the 
candidate, but this high office carried with it the honorary 
title of comes and conferred immunity from all other 
charges 2 . 

Since magistracies were open to members of the Jewish 
faith, it may be assumed that Jews were also required to 
perform municipal liturgies, although those in the Orient 
claimed exemption 3 . Constantine required the Jews to be 
enrolled as curiales^ granting exemption to a few pre- 
sumably the priests in each community. By later laws 
those who devoted their time to the synagogue were 
excused from personal and civil obligations 4 . In 383 and 
again in 398 the immunity of all sects, and particularly of 
the Jews, was revoked 5 . The emperor Theodosius again 
withdrew all privileges in regard to exemption from 
liturgies which the Jews may have enjoyed at that time 
and forbade them to be appointed to administrative posts 
or to imperial honors 6 . 

Christians were not distinguished from Jews at first, 
but when the political significance of the new religion was 
realized the government granted them no favors. While 
their religious beliefs may have prevented Christians from 
participating voluntarily in municipal duties which in- 
volved the performance of pagan ritual, it is evident from 
the proceedings of the Council of Iliberris that Christians 
held magistracies and even pagan priesthoods 7 . Imperial 
legislation dealing with Christians who avoided their civic 
duties began with Constantine who, in 313, granted 

1 Otto, Pries ter und Tcmpel, 2. 250; Oertel, op. cit. 392; no. 178. 

2 Cod. Th. 12. i. 75 (370 77 (372). 

3 Cod. Th. 12. i. 158 (398); 16. 8. 24 (418); Dig. 50. 2. 3. 
* Cod. Th. 16. 8. 2 (320), 3 (321), 4 (330, '3 (397)- 

5 Cod. Th. 12. i. 99 (383), 158 (398); Cod. J. i. 9. 5, 10. 

6 Cod. J. i. 9. 1 8; Theodosius, Novellac, 3; Justinian, Novtllat, 45. 

7 Declareuil, op. cit. 97 jf. 


clerici exemption from all municipal charges 1 . Evidently 
the suffering curiales found in this law an easy way of 
escape from taxation, and shortly afterwards the emperor 
was forced to issue an edict by which members of the 
curiae or wealthy plebeians were forbidden to enter holy 
orders 2 . The frequent re-enactment of this law in later 
times shows that it was persistently violated, and the 
general trend of the legislation of the fourth and fifth 
centuries followed the principle applied to curiales who 
aspired to membership in the imperial nobility. The 
Church as a career or as means of escape from liturgies 
was closed to members of the curial order as far as 
possible. If they sought to enter the priesthood, their 
convictions were put to a severe test by laws requiring 
that their property must be surrendered to the curia in 
whole or in part, and by the provision of substitutes to 
perform their curial liturgies 3 . Valentinian cancelled all 
exemptions from tribute and from munera patrimoniorum*. 
Majorian ordered all curiales in the lower offices of the 
Church to return to their former station in life, while 
deacons, presbyters, and bishops were compelled to 
fulfil all their liturgies as citizens 5 . According to a law 
of Justinian, curiales were forbidden to enter the priest- 
hood except in early life, and on condition of surrendering 
a fourth of their estate to the municipality 6 . 

Tenants on imperial estates were excused from muni- 
cipal charges unless they owned other property privately. 
Even these tenants were exempted by a law of Con- 
stantine if their lease of crown lands covered twenty-five 
iugera or more 7 . Since the emperors wished to increase 
the area of land under cultivation, special immunity was 

1 Cod. Th. 1 6. 2. i (313); cf. ibid. 16. 2. 2 (319), 7 (330), 24 (377). 

2 Cod. Th. 1 6. 2. 3 (320). 

3 Cod. Th. 12. 1.49(361), 59(3 6 4)>99(383)> 104(383), 163(399); 
16. 2. 19(370), 21 (371). 

4 Valentinian, Novel/ac, 10. 5 Majorian, Novellae, 7, 7 (458). 
6 Justinian, Novcllae, 6, i (535). 7 Cod. Th. 12. i. 33 (342). 


granted to those who brought waste land under tillage, 
and full ownership was given to the occupants 1 . 

In studying the numerous documents dealing with 
honores and munera we may easily discern certain ten- 
dencies which have an important bearing on the history 
of the municipalities. The magistracies were coveted in 
the earlier period of the empire, when economic con- 
ditions were favorable and civic life was distinguished 
for its splendor. Even then indications are not lacking 
that decay had already set in. The charter of Malaca pro- 
vided for a possible lack of candidates for civic positions, 
and we may infer that some municipalities had already 
been confronted with this difficulty. Doubtless many 
weaker communities had already been impoverished be- 
cause of the loss of citizens through various economic 
changes. In the third century when famine, plague, 
civil war, and social disorders were widespread, the magis- 
tracies became serious burdens on the incumbents, and 
willing candidates ceased to present themselves for office, 
except possibly in a few cities which enjoyed unusual 
economic advantages. The Codes now lay more stress on 
the burdens attached to magistracies than upon the dis- 
tinction which they conferred, and while some traces of 
the former privileges still remained, the honores differed 
but little from liturgies. In Egypt it is difficult to dis- 
tinguish between the classes of public service, and the 
charges attached to certain magistracies were so ruinous 
that they involved not only the annual income of the 
incumbent, but trenched upon his capital resources. The 
laws reveal the fact that citizens designated for office 
often preferred to abandon their property rather than to 
accept a magistracy, and that many sought to escape their 
obligations by flight. While the decay of the traditional 
offices may be ascribed in part to the development of their 
liturgical character, the creation of the imperial curatores 
and defensores contributed greatly in diminishing the 
. TA. 15. 3. i (319); cf. pp. 21 iff. 


powers and prerogatives of the local magistrates. Officials 
designated by the emperor naturally usurped authority 
because of their greater prestige, and it is not surprising 
to find that the ordinary magistracies disappeared in 
many towns to which a curator had been assigned. 

In the development of liturgies the decurionate fell 
into greater disrepute than the magistracies. Membership 
in the curia became hereditary, probably about the begin- 
ning of the third century, and in the fourth we find an 
order ofcuria/es which apparently included all citizens who 
were landowners and eligible for membership in the local 
senate. Their rank was not only hereditary but also com- 
pulsory. The history of imperial legislation concerning 
curiales may be briefly traced. When the collection of 
taxes was transferred from the publicans to the munici- 
pality, the duty was assigned to a committee often chosen 
from the senate (decemprimt) or, as in the East, from 
wealthy citizens (ScKarrpajrot), who were not necessarily 
members of the order. It is probable that many cities 
farmed their own taxes and the senate as a whole was 
responsible for their payment. When Septimius Severus 
granted a municipal senate to the metropolis of each nome 
in Egypt, he made the members of this body responsible 
for the collection of the taxes from their nome. The 
Egyptian system was soon extended to other munici- 
palities throughout the empire. At least, in the reign of 
Aurelian, the curiales were responsible for the taxes on 
abandoned property, and there is no reason to doubt that 
other deficiencies were made up by them. When they 
attempted to shift this burden to others, the villagers 
were oppressed and the charge was made that every 
curia/is was a tyrant. As liturgies and taxes grew in 
severity, as great landed estates arose owned by proprie- 
tors who enjoyed immunity from municipal obligations 
either by virtue of their patents of imperial nobility or by 
their ability to defy the municipal authorities, and as a 
system of patronage developed whereby many of the rural 

AMA [ I 13 ] 8 


population escaped their share of taxation by placing them- 
selves under the protection of some wealthy and powerful 
landowner, the curiales themselves had to bear alone the 
increasing burdens placed upon their order. Their un- 
happy lot was further aggravated by the loss of revenues 
from the public lands, which were frequently confiscated 
by the emperors or forcibly occupied by wealthy citizens. 
In order to preserve the municipal institutions from the 
danger of disintegration, since many curiales were aban- 
doning their property rather than facing the burdens 
placed upon them, the emperors devised stringent legis- 
lation to control citizens who were members of the 
order. Not only were severe penalties imposed upon 
those who attempted to evade their obligations, but every 
avenue of escape was closed. The curiales became a guild 
in which membership was hereditary and compulsory. In 
the fourth century the laws regarded the estate as more 
important than the citizen in the imposition of taxes and 
liturgies, and the owner was virtually reduced to the 
position of an imperial serf. 

While the unfortunate position in which the curiales 
found themselves in the later empire was due to a variety 
of causes, the most important factor was the development 
of the liturgical system. When a volume of tribute flowed 
into the treasury at Rome sufficient to relieve her citizens 
of all taxes, an elaborate system of liturgies was un- 
necessary. In western municipalities our records are un- 
fortunately incomplete, and the clauses of the charters 
pertaining to liturgies are lacking, but it is probable that 
sufficient revenue was derived from the public lands in 
each city to defray the ordinary administrative expenses. 
The citizens could be called upon to give their labour to 
an amount not exceeding five days in public service, and 
the magistrates were expected to supplement the revenues 
by contributions towards public amusements or in other 
ways, such as by the summa honoraria. In the Greek cities, 
however, the Romans found a fully developed system of 


liturgies. This they adopted and in the course of time 
they extended it over the empire. An important factor 
in the extension and development of this system as a form 
of imperial taxation was the depreciation of the coinage 
by successive emperors. By reducing the gold and silver 
content in the various issues, embarrassing financial 
difficulties could be avoided, and the consequent rise in 
prices produced an appearance of prosperity, at least 
among the agricultural classes. When the taxes returned to 
thejiscus in the depreciated coinage, there was trouble. It 
was found that the revenues were no longer sufficient to 
meet the increased cost of administration. Since it would 
be extremely unpopular and possibly dangerous to in- 
crease the rate of taxation, the rulers were left with the 
alternative of further depreciation or of extending the 
municipal system of liturgies to cover various forms of the 
imperial service. As a matter of fact both methods were 
resorted to, until the emperors refused to accept their own 
coinage and demanded the taxes paid in kind. In collect- 
ing these and transporting them to the public storehouses, 
an additional burden was placed upon the municipality. 
The liturgies, which we may call imperial, were distributed 
throughout the provincial cities and were regulated by 
laws applied uniformly to the whole empire. In the 
course of time the local liturgies came under similar 
provisions and tended to become universally applied. Of 
the imperial liturgies the most exacting were those in 
connection with the imperial post and the billeting of 
troops or public servants. The severity of these liturgies 
was increased by the venality and extortion practiced by 
the officials, and although the emperors frequently sought 
to correct abuses they were powerless to cope with the 
widespread corruption which permeated the bureaucracy. 
In addition to the imperial liturgies, the local munera 
grew more burdensome. This was due to economic causes. 
The decline in the fertility of the soil, the alienation of 
municipal lands by confiscation or otherwise, and the 

[ 115 ] 8-z 


appropriation of a large part of the municipal revenues 
by Valentinian and his successors were instrumental in 
impoverishing the municipal treasury and causing the 
transfer of many munera -personalia to the class of munera 
patrimoniorum. In this way another burden was imposed 
on the citizens already struggling to meet the increasing 
cost of the administration and the defense of the empire. 
For these reasons it was necessary that the right of im- 
munity from liturgies should be carefully restricted. The 
earliest legislation on this question dates from the reign of 
Antoninus, who limited the power of the municipalities 
to confer this privilege. We believe that the edict of Cara- 
calla was actuated by similar motives. By granting citizen- 
ship to all free subjects in the provinces, the privilege of 
immunity which Romans had hitherto enjoyed was taken 
away, and the liturgies were more equitably distributed. 
In the fourth and fifth centuries there is a constant 
succession of laws which steadily narrowed the right of 
persons holding property in the municipalities to avoid 
the charges which such possession entailed. In the age 
of Zeno and Justinian no citizen of curial origin could 
escape his municipal obligations except by appointment 
to the highest positions in the imperial bureaucracy. Un- 
fortunately the general trend of this legislation aggravated 
rather than mitigated the lot of the curiales. In fact the 
study of the laws governing the magistracies, the liturgies, 
and immunities reveals to the modern student the most 
significant phases in the decline of municipal life in the 
Roman Empire. 



NO adequate conception may be had of the relations 
which the municipalities bore to the central govern- 
ment, nor of certain important influences which 
affected the welfare of the cities, unless one knows some- 
thing of the imperial taxes which were levied in the 
provinces, of the methods employed in collecting them, and 
of the requisitions made by imperial officials 1 . 

The principal tax in the provinces was on land, and in 
Sicily, the first district acquired outside of Italy, it took 
the form of tithes. The Romans simply took over the 
system of taxation there which their predecessors had 
followed 2 . Had they not found taxes already being 
collected there by the central government which they dis- 
possessed, it is not impossible that the municipalities in 
Sicily and elsewhere might have gone untaxed, and might 
have been incorporated into the Roman state as the 
civitates in Italy had been. In that case the organization 
of the Roman empire would have taken an entirely 
different course, and the provincial cities would have had 
a very different history from that which they did have. 
But finding a careful system of taxation worked out in 
Sicily, and finding machinery in operation which would 
pour a large revenue into the treasury, the Romans con- 
tinued the system. In a similar way, on acquiring Mace- 
donia, they took over the method of collecting taxes there 
which their predecessors had followed, as we shall see 
later. Two centuries after the conquest of Sicily Cicero 

1 The munera are treated in another chapter. The Roman financial 
system and its administration have been left out of account in this chapter, 
as not pertinent to our purpose. 

2 Cf- PP- 47^- 

[ "7 1 


thought of the provincial contribution to the treasury as 
" representing the fruits of victory, or as a punishment for 
engaging in war with the Romans 1 ." And this may well 
have been the conception which the Romans held, down 
to the close of the second century B.C. But in the lex 
agraria of 1 1 1 B.C. 2 the theory is taking shape that the 
Roman state owned all conquered territory outside Italy 3 . 
By the early empire the new theory, which came perhaps 
from Egypt, was generally accepted by Roman lawyers. 
From this time forth the essential part of the tribute paid 
by the provinces is thought of as rent. This rent may be 
paid in the form of a quota, usually a tenth of the produce 
(decuma), or as a fixed contribution (stipendium). Sicily, 
as we have noticed, paid tithes, and it seems probable 
that the next important province to be acquired, Spain, 
made her contribution to the imperial treasury in a similar 
way at the outset 4 . In course of time the Spanish assess- 
ment was commuted to a fixed money payment 5 . The first 
sure instance of the imposition of a stipendium on subduing 
a new territory occurs in the case of Macedonia. Here 
again, as in Sicily, the Romans took over the system of 
taxation which they found in existence in the newly 
conquered region 6 . By 168 B.C., then, two different 

1 Cf. the quotation from Cic. in Verr. 3. 1214, given on p. 46. 

2 CIL. i, 200. 

3 Mommsen (S/. R. 3, 73 1) thinks that this theory was recognized in the 
Sempronian law of 123 B.C. under which Asia was organized, but cf. 
L^crivain, Diet. Dar. s.v. tributum, p. 431, col. 2. 

4 Livy (43. 2. 12) speaks of the demand of the Roman magistrate in 
171 B.C.: ne cogeret vicesimas vendere Hispanos nisi quanti ipse vellet. 
From this remark it looks as if the Spaniards originally contributed one- 
twentieth of their grain. For a different explanation of this passage, cf. 
Marquardt, St. Ferw. 2, 197. See also Rostowzew, R.E. 7, 154. The 
earliest arrangements in Sardinia cannot be made out with certainty; cf. 
L^crivain, Diet. Dar. s.v. tributum, p. 432, n. 2. At all events a decuma 
was exacted of the people in the island. 5 Cf. Cic. in Ferr. 3. 12. 

6 Frank (Roman Imperialism, 209/1) makes the interesting suggestion 
that this fixed annual payment was in lieu of a war indemnity. Thus Car- 
thage at the end of the first Punic war was required to pay an indemnity 
of 3200 talents, and at the close of the second, 10,000. Macedonia, how- 

[ "8 ] 


methods of levying tribute in the provinces had been 
adopted. In some provinces one of these systems pre- 
vailed to the exclusion of the other. In others the two 
methods were combined, and in still other cases part of 
a province paid tithes, and the other part a fixed sum of 
money. Thus Sicily and Asia for many years paid tithes 
only, Gaul always paid a stipendium^ one part of Africa 
contributed money, another part, a quota of its produce, 
while Sardinia for some time apparently contributed both. 
It was clearly the general policy of Rome to substitute 
a money payment for a payment in kind. This change was 
made probably in Spain and Sardinia, and certainly in 
Asia, Judaea, and Africa. Undoubtedly it lightened the 
burdens of the provincial cities, because a system of tithes 
always bears heavily on the farmer. So far as the rate of 
taxation goes, assuming that it was 10 per cent, on the 
average, it was not exorbitant. While the land-tax was the 
commonest and most important tax outside Italy, it was 
not the only impost peculiar to the provinces in the time 
of the republic. In the regions conquered by them the 
Romans found not only a tributum soli but also a tributum 
capitis. The latter tax was levied in Judaea, Africa, Cilicia, 
Asia, and Britain, and in some of these districts at least 
Rome continued to levy it regularly or occasionally 1 . This 
impost seems to have taken a variety of forms, according 
to the usages and economic conditions of a province. In 
some cases it was a simple poll tax, in others, a license paid 
by pedlars, shopkeepers, and men engaged in other trades, 
and in still others, an income or property tax 2 . Probably 
the tributum capitis^ however, was thought of under the 

ever, after the victory of Paullus was not in a position to pay down an 
adequate amount. The annual payment, therefore, required of her may have 
been thought of as interest upon such a sum. It is more natural to suppose, 
however, that Rome simply continued the Macedonian system of a fixed 
payment of money each year. This conclusion seems to harmonize with the 
fact that the amount which the Romans exacted each year was exactly half 
that required by the kings. 

1 Cf. Marquardt, St. Ferw. 2. 198 and nn. 2 Op. cit. 200. 

[ "9 ] 


republic as a tax intended to supplement or fill out the 
contribution required under the tributum so/i 1 . But as the 
policy of substituting payment in money for payment in 
kind developed, it was natural that this tax should become 
more important. The census which Augustus began in 
27 B.C. in the provinces would furnish a sound basis not 
only for a just valuation of property 2 , but for the imposition 
of a tax on all kinds of property, and the tributum soli took 
into account, not only the acreage and the character of 
land, but also the number of slaves employed and the 
equipment owned, while the tributum capitis was extended 
to cover other kinds of property 3 . 

In this connection a word may be said about the 
scriptura, or payment made by those who pastured their 
flocks and herds on state-land. Under the republic the 
right to collect the fees due for pasturage was let out to 
companies, but in imperial times the privilege of using 
public pasture-land was let out to the owners of large 
herds, or the lands were occupied by herds belonging to 
the emperor 4 . 

We have had occasion to notice in a preceding chapter 
that in the provinces the unit with which Rome dealt was 
rather the community than the individual 5 . In accordance 
with this principle the tribute was ordinarily paid, not by 
the homo stipendiarius^ but by the civitas stipendiaria*. The 

1 Marquardt, op. cit. 203. 

2 Humbert, Diet. Dar. s.v. census, p. 1007, col. I and Kubitschek, R.E. 
3, 19187. 

3 Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d'Asie, 331. The house tax exacted in 
Cilicia (Cic. ad fam. 3. 8. 5) was an old Jewish tax (Josephus, Ant. lud. 
19. 6. 3) and was also levied in Egypt. This tax may explain the law against 
removing or tearing down houses in some municipalities. 

4 Cf. Humbert, Diet. Dar. s.v. scriptura\ Rostowzew, Gesck. d. Staats- 
pacht, 410 (62). 5 Cf. p. 17. 

6 Cf. Marquardt, St. Fcrw. 2, 185, n. 7; Hirschfeld, 74, n. 6. This is 
clearly shown, for instance, by the statement of Apuleius {ApoL 101) that 
the tributum soli of Pudentilla was paid in for her to the quaestor of the 
village of Oea: Pudentillae nomine pro eo agello tributum dependi; prae- 
sens est quaestor publicus, cui depensum est, Corvinius. 


provincial municipality therefore was made responsible 
for the payment of a certain amount, and this fact proved 
to be of tremendous significance in the subsequent history 
of Roman municipalities. When a government lays an 
obligation on a corporation, it must look to the officials of 
that corporation to satisfy it. If the obligation is a financial 
one, and if the corporation cannot or will not meet it in 
full, the officials must make up the deficit. This was the 
situation to which a municipality in the provinces was 
brought in the course of time by Rome's method of im- 
posing a tax upon it and not on the individual subject. 

Just as the Romans had taken over Hiero's system of 
taxation in Sicily, so they adopted his method of collecting 
taxes. Instead of collecting the tribute by means of 
government officials, they divided Sicily 1 , and later the 
other provinces, into districts, and farmed out the privilege 
of gathering the taxes in each district to the highest 
bidder 2 . The difference between the amount bid by a 
redemptor and the sum which he was able to squeeze out 
of the taxpayers represented his profits under the contract, 
and Livy, Cicero's Verrine orations, and his letters from 
Cilicia set forth clearly the sufferings of the municipalities 
in the republican period under this iniquitous practice. 
Julius Caesar introduced a measure of reform into this 
system in Asia 3 . Augustus probably took the collection 
of the tribute away from the publicans in the imperial 
provinces 4 , and by the time of Nero their activities were 
confined to the collection of the vectigalia**. It would be 

1 Cf. Cic. in Ftrr. 3. 67, 75, 84, 86, 99. 

2 For the organization of the societates publicanorum, the technical terms 
applied to the officials in these organizations, and the method of collecting 
taxes, cf. Marquardt, St. Vcrtv. 2, 184^., 298^.; Rostowzew, Gesch. d. 
Staatspacht y 374-jf.; Hirschfeld, 68^".; Chapot, La prov. rom.proc. d'Asic, 
324^.; Arnold, Roman Provincial Administration, 201 ff. 

3 Cf. Chapot, op. cit. 328. 

4 Cf. L^crivain, Diet. Dar. s.v. tributum, 433, col. 2. 

5 Cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. 379; Mommsen, St. R. 2, 1017 /. and 
n. i end. 


hard to imagine a more vicious method of collecting taxes 
than that which had grown up in the Roman world during 
the last century of the republic. Hiero's system in Sicily 
of farming the taxes out to local contractors made the tax- 
farmers amenable in some measure to local public senti- 
ment. But when the Sempronian Law in 1 23 B.C. provided 
for the letting of the Asiatic tax-contracts to companies 
in Rome, it removed this salutary restraint on the greed of 
the tax-gatherer, and, what was worse, it led to the growth 
of financial organizations in Rome, which were strong 
enough to bend governors to their purpose and influence 
the senate and the courts. It was the irony of fate that this 
vicious system which bore so heavily on the subject 
peoples of Rome should have gained its strength from a 
law fathered by the great democratic leader, Gaius 
Gracchus. The empire not only did away with this method 
of collecting tribute, but it introduced other important 
reforms in provincial taxation. It substituted a money 
payment in most cases for the more harassing payment in 
kind. Provincial governors were kept under a stricter 
and more constant supervision. Their terms were long 
enough to enable them to inform themselves of con- 
ditions in their provinces and to remedy abuses. The 
taking of a careful census furnished a more equitable basis 
for taxation than had existed under the republic, and cities 
had the right of appealing to Rome from unjust decisions 
on matters of taxation. 

Up to this point we have been discussing the principal 
imperial tax paid by the provincial civitates. But in 
addition to the tributum the central government levied 
portoria^ the vicesima libertatis, the vicesima hereditatium^ 
the centesima rerum venalium^ the vicesima quinta venalium 
mancipiorum^ the capitulum lenocinii^ a tax on gladiatorial 
shows 1 , and, in the later period, the annona, the collatio 
lustralis^ the capitatio plebeia^ not to mention certain vecti- 

1 C/l no. no. 


galia of a temporary character 1 . The first of these imposts 
were laid under the republic. The portoria go back to the 
beginning of the republic 2 , while Livy refers the vicesima 
libertatis to the fourth century 3 . 

The Romans applied the term portorium to a duty 
levied on merchandise in transit at a frontier, or when 
brought into a harbor or a city, or when transported over 
a bridge or along a road 4 . The establishment of an imperial 
customs duty was the result of natural development. At 
a very early period the Romans collected a duty on goods 
brought into their city. In the territory which they con- 
quered they found states collecting such a tax on their 
frontiers or at the gates of cities. The victors took over from 
these subject communities the right to the duties, and deve- 
loped in course of time a tariff system for the whole Roman 
world 5 . In other words they adopted the portorium from 
the conquered cities just as they had taken over the tribute 
from Hiero in Sicily 6 . Of the tariff districts in the West 
we can clearly make out four, viz. Spain, the Gauls, 
Illyricum, and the four divisions of Africa 7 . At the 
frontiers of these districts and also within the districts 
themselves, at river crossings or on the main highways, 
posts were established for the collection of customs 8 . 
The tariff was a flat ad valorem duty, levied for revenue 
only, and varied somewhat from district to district and 
from one period to another. Under the early empire it 
was 2 1 per cent, in Gaul and Asia, and probably 5 per 

1 Cf. Hirschfeld, 92, nn. 2, 3. A salt tax is recorded in Priene, Inschr. 
von Priene ', 1 1 1 ; cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. \i\jf.\ Cod. J. 4. 61. 1 1. 

2 Cf. Cagnat, Les impots inJirects chez les Remains, 6f. 

3 Cf.Hist. 7. 1 6. 

4 Cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. 390, n. 115 and Liibker, Reallexikon, 373, 
col. i. 

5 Cf. Cagnat, op. cit. 17 /. 6 Cf. pp. 4? ff. 

7 Cf. Hirschfeld, 78; Rostowzew, op. cit. 391. Cagnat (op. cit. 17) gives 
seven districts in the West. Hirschfeld and Rostowzew omit Spain. 

8 For the Gallic region, cf. Cagnat, op. cit. 47-69; cf. also An. //>. 1919, 
no. 10, 11. 65-70. 

[ 1*3 ] 


cent, in Africa and Illyricum 1 . Shortly after the time of 
Theodosius it seems to have been raised to 12^ per cent. 2 
All articles intended for sale were subject to this duty, 
and it was exacted of all persons except those officially 
connected with the central government and excepting 
the members of certain privileged classes, like the veterans 
and the navicularii*. This tax and the method of collecting 
it were open to two serious objections. In the first place 
it interfered grievously with the freedom of trade, and 
enhanced the prices of raw material and manufactured 
wares. The trade of the empire suffered in the same way 
from the multiplicity of tariff districts as did that of 
France in the eighteenth century. It is only necessary to 
glance at a map of the Roman world to appreciate the 
delays and the expense to which a merchant would be 
subject, for instance, in importing wares into Italy from 
the East. The situation was made worse by the extortionate 
practices and the high-handed methods which the pub- 
licans adopted 4 . Literature is full of complaints of their 
conduct, and certain emperors went so far as to propose 
the abolition of the tax altogether 5 . But it was such a 
fruitful source of revenue that it lasted into the later 

The vicesima libertatis or manumissionum continued into 
the empire, but was probably abolished by Diocletian 6 . 
We may infer from the large number of freedmen of 
whom we hear in the late republic and the early empire 
that this tax brought a large sum into the treasury 7 . The 
master would naturally pay it when he rewarded a slave 
by granting him his freedom, the slave, when the en- 
franchisement was bought from the master. It was 

1 Cf. Hirschfeld, 79^. 2 Cf. Cagnat, op. cit. i$ff. 

3 Cf. Cagnat, op. cit. 119125. Now and then people of a favored city 
were exempted from the payment of the portorium ; cf. ibid. 125. 

4 Cf. Cagnat, op. cit. 88/. 5 Cf. Cagnat, op. cit. yff. 
e Cf. Hirschfeld, 109. 

7 For an attempt to calculate the amount in an early period, cf. Cagnat, 
op. cit. 173. 

[ 124 ] 


collected by publicans under the republic and the early 
empire 1 . It is interesting to notice that in some cases this 
tax went into the treasuries of the municipalities 2 . Augustus 
introduced the centesima rerum venalium, the vicesima 
quinta venalium mancipiorum, and the vicesima heredi- 
tatium. The first-mentioned tax was levied on goods sold 
at auction, and must have been regarded as oppressive, 
because several attempts were made to abolish or reduce 
it 3 . It continued however into the later empire. The 
4 per cent, impost on the sale of slaves involved only an 
increase in the rate of the centesima when applied to a 
particular kind of property. 

In this chapter we are not making a survey of Roman 
finances nor even of the Roman system of taxation. We 
are only concerned with the bearing of that system on the 
municipalities of the empire. We are interested therefore, 
primarily, in the imperial taxes which the provincials were 
required to pay. Now the inheritance tax was levied on 
citizens only, and, so far as the provinces were directly 
concerned, would affect merely the Roman citizens 
resident in them 4 . However, after the publication of 
Caracalla's edicts of A.D. 212 and 213, this tax was payable 
by all freemen throughout the Roman world, and from 
this time on the burden of it fell as heavily on provincial 
municipalities as in the earlier period it had fallen on 
Italian cities 5 . The tax was levied on estates above 100,000 
sesterces bequeathed to heirs other than blood-relations 6 . 
The collection of it was farmed out up to the time of 
Hadrian. Thenceforth it was collected directly by the 

1 Cf. Hirschfcld, io6y.; Rostowzew, op. cit. 380. 

2 Cf. p. 140, n. 6. 3 Cf. Hirschfeld, 93. 
4 Cf. Pliny, Panegyrtcus, 37-39. 

6 For certain probable limitations on the extension of Roman citizenship, 
cf. Girard, Textes, 203-204, and the literature there cited. 

6 Outside of the fact that Augustus established it primarily as a source of 
revenue, he may well have thought that its provisions would help check 
race suicide. On this point cf. Hirschfeld, 98, n. i. 

[ 125 ] 


central government 1 . In the time of Justinian we hear no 
more of it 2 . One important point in the incidence of this 
tax in the provinces is not clear to us. Did it apply to land 
owned and bequeathed by Roman citizens ? If it did, such 
land must have been subject to a double tax, since a tribu- 
tum was also levied upon it 3 . Possibly in the provinces 
only movable property was liable to this impost. The 
history of this tax illustrates at the same time the gradual 
leveling of Italy and the provinces and the influence of an 
economic factor in bringing about a political change. When 
Augustus proposed an inheritance tax, to fall on Roman 
citizens, Italy had been free from the payment of the 
tributum for many years. The proposed tax, while not a 
tributum^ was viewed in the light of a tribute 4 . It was a 
step toward removing Italy from the favored position 
which she had hitherto held when compared with the 
provinces, and Augustus carried out his purpose against 
the strong opposition of the senate only by threatening 
to impose the tribute on Italy. The extension of Roman 
citizenship by Caracalla to all freemen in the provinces 
is the last important step in the process of equalizing the 
political rights of provincials and Italians. The result of 
his action was to bring the provincials under the operation 
of the inheritance law 5 . Consequently the history of this 
tax, from Augustus to Caracalla, is synchronous with the 
process of reducing Italy to the political and social level 
of the provinces, and is intimately connected with it. The 

1 Cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. 385. 

2 Cf. Marquardt, St. Ferw. 2, 269. 

3 Hyginus (Lachmann, Gromatici veteres^ 197) says: Except! sunt fundi 
bene meritorum, ut in totum privati iuris essent, nee ullam coloniae munifi- 
centiam deberent, et essent in solo populi Romani. This raises the point 
whether Roman citizens living in non-Roman communities owned their 
property by Quiritary law. If so, their real estate would be virtually Roman 
soil. The statement of Hyginus would imply that the possessions of favored 
individuals were so regarded. We cannot tell whether Hyginus includes 
Romans under the class of bene meriti. 

4 Cf. Hirschfeld, 98, n. 2. 

5 For Caracalla's purpose, cf. no. 192 and pp. 


last step in this movement was taken by Diocletian. The 
vectigal lenocinii or capitulum lenocinii was at first farmed 
out, but later collected by agents of the government 1 . 

In the later empire four important changes were made 
in the imperial system of taxation. For the first time, under 
Diocletian, a property tax was imposed on all the free 
cities in the provinces and on the cities of Italy. By this 
action the free cities lost in large measure their ex- 
ceptional position, and Italy, in the matter of taxation, 
was reduced to the level of the provinces. A systematic 
contribution of food, in the form of the annona^ was re- 
quired throughout the empire. In the third place assess- 
ments were based on certain fixed fiscal units, and finally 
comprehensive changes were made in the method of 
collecting taxes. 

To take up the second change, as we have already 
noticed, when the Romans acquired Sicily they took over 
the system of taxation which they found in existence 
there 2 . They exacted from the Sicilian cities the payment 
of a tenth part of their produce. Part of this contribution 
was used for the army of occupation, part of it for the city 
of Rome. As the population of the capital grew and 
agriculture in Italy declined, the quantity of grain which 
the Romans needed from the island increased correspond- 
ingly. Consequently, in addition to the regular decumae, 
which constituted the tributum of the island, alter ae decu- 
mae were called for in times of need under a special law 
or decree of the senate. For this contribution a fixed price 
was paid 3 . Not infrequently a third contribution, the 
jrumentum imperatum, was required. For this also payment 
was made. Rome paid too for the supplies delivered to the 
governor, thefrumentum in cellam, orfrumentum emptum, or 

1 Cf. no. 112. 2 Cf. p. 47. 

3 Cf. Cic. in Verr. 3. 42 : scnatus cum temporibus rei publicae cogitur ut 
deccrnat ut altcrae decumac exigantur, ita decernit, ut pro his dccumis 
pecunia solvatur aratoribus; ut, quo plus sumitur quam debetur, id emi non 
auferri putetur. Cf. he. cit. 3. 163, 172. 


annona, as it was called 1 * It is significant of the future 
that even the civitates immunes were required to join in 
furnishing these extra supplies. Payment in kind, as in 
the case of Sicily, either in the form of a quota of the 
produce or a fixed number of measures of grain, was 
required in certain other provinces 2 . On the other hand, 
from Macedonia and some other provinces a tribute in 
money was exacted. In the arrangements which were 
made in the early period we find all the elements out of 
which the system of Diocletian developed. Tribute was 
required from the civitates of the provinces in kind or in 
the form of money payments. Food was provided for 
the city of Rome and for the armies of occupation from the 
supplies which were levied as tribute and from those 
which were requisitioned, and the free cities, of Sicily at 
least, had to submit to requisitions. The development of 
the earlier system into that of Diocletian can be followed 
with some confidence. In the early days subject cities 
fell into classes. Those of the first class were called upon 
each year for a fixed sum of money. Residents in the 
other cities were required to contribute a quota of their 
produce, or a poll tax, or both. Gradually the exaction of 
a quota from the second class of cities gave way to the 
contribution of a fixed annual amount in kind, and still 
later for the contribution in kind a fixed money payment 
was established for most of the provinces. The first change 
made it possible to do away with the tax-farmers; the 
second one relieved the state from the trouble and expense 
attendant on storage and carriage. Two circumstances, 

1 Cf. Rostowzew, R.E. 7, 165; Liebenam, R.E. 4, 2310; Marquardt, 
St. Ferw. 2, 113. 

2 Hyginus (Lachmann, Gromatid veteres, 205) says: Agri vectigales 
multas habent constitutiones ; in quibusdam provinciis fructus partem prae- 
stant certam, alii quintas, alii septimas, alii pecuniam, et hoc per soli 
aestimationem. Certa pretia agris constitute sunt, ut in Pannonia arvi primi, 
arvi secundi, prati, silvae vulgaris, pascuae. His omnibus agris vectigal est ad 
modum ubertatis per singula iugera constitutum. The taxes on public lands 
varied as the provincial tribute seems to have varied. 


however, in the later situation brought about a reversion 
to the earlier practices. The first of these two factors was 
the debasement of the currency, which began under Nero 
and had reached such a point under Gallienus that silver 
coins contained but 4 per cent, of silver 1 . The tax receipts 
in this depreciated currency left the treasury in great 
straits, and this situation in itself would have been 
sufficient to force a return to the practice of requiring 
payment in kind, but it was reinforced by the increasing 
demands for food of the city of Rome and of the armies. 
We are not surprised, therefore, to find Diocletian making 
a contribution of grain a fixed part of the tribute levied on 
all the provinces, and, since this contribution was in- 
tended primarily for the annual supply of Rome, it was 
naturally called the annona*. The decision of the govern- 
ment to collect a large part of the taxes in kind put a 
tremendous strain on the imperial post, which was charged 
with the transportation of this produce, and we may thus 
understand the bitter protests against the post made by 
the agricultural classes, for the burden of its maintenance 
fell largely on them 3 . Grain could be had only from farm 
land, and consequently this tax was laid only on the owners 
of such land. The objects of it were land, men, and animals. 
After A.D. 289 the rate of taxation and other pertinent 
matters were set forth each year in the indictio of the em- 
peror 4 . The owners of other property than farm-land 
continued to pay the tribute. Subject cities were called 
on for both the annona and the tribute, while civitates 
immunes probably contributed only the annona^. 

1 Cf. Seeck, R.E. 3, 1515. Probably the mines of the empire did not 
produce a quantity of gold and silver sufficient for trade, and large amounts 
of the precious metals were exported to Arabia, India, and China; cf. Pliny, 
N.H. 12. 1 8, 82-84. 

2 Egypt and Africa, upon which Rome depended for supplies, had 
always continued to pay their tribute in kind. Consequently when the 
contributions of the other provinces, hitherto paid in depreciated currency, 
were converted into payments in kind, these two provinces were much less 
heavily taxed than the others; cf. Seeck, R.E. 3, 1516. 

3 Cf. nos. 51, 156. 4 Cf. Seeck, R.E. 3, 1516. 5 Ibid. 

AM A [ IZQ ] 9 


Diocletian based the assessment of taxes on a fiscal 
unit called the caput or iugum. A uniform tax was collected 
on all capita and iuga. A caput was the working power of 
a man in good health 1 . In the West this was the term 
commonly used of the fiscal unit. Less frequently the 
terms millena and centuria were employed. Two women, 
a certain number of animals, or a fixed amount of land 
of a specified sort also constituted a caput. In the East the 
unit, when made up of men, women, or animals, was called 
a capu^ when composed of land, a iugum. Thus in the 
Diocese of the Orient a vineyard of five iugera^ cultivated 
land of twenty iugera^ or a certain number of olive trees 
made up a iugum 2 . The amount due on each iugum or 
caput was fixed by an imperial edict, and the taxes thus 
assessed were levied under the general supervision of the 
praetorian prefects, the vicarii^ and the governors of pro- 
vinces. When the amount to be paid by a province had 
been determined, the governor apportioned it among the 
several cities within the province according to the number 
of taxable capita or iuga 3 . 

Diocletian's system was devised to bring within its 
sweep all the property in the empire, and for convenience 

1 Cf. Seeck, R.E. 3, 1517, 1564 and the passage from the Cod. Th. 
13. 1 1. 2 there quoted: cum antea per singulos viros, per binas vero mulieres 
capitis norma sit censa. See also in general Seeck, R.E. 3, 1513^.; Lecri- 
vain, Diet. Dar. s.v. tributum, 434^. and Marquardt, St. Ferw. 2, 224 ff. 
The value of the caput was somewhat changed by Theodosius the Great in 
A.D. 386. He rated five men or eight women as two capita; cf. Seeck, R.E. 
3, 1517 and Cod. Th. 13. u. 2. 

2 Cf. Seeck, R.E. 3, 1519; Marquardt, St. Ferw. 2, 221 ff. See also the 
description of the iugum in a passage cited by Mommsen (Hermes, 3 (i 869), 
430) from a Syriac collection of laws of A.D. 501 and CIL. x, 407 and IG. 
xi, 3, 1 80, 182, 343-9- 

3 The inscription of the year 323 from Vulceii in Lucania (CIL. x, 407) 
cited by Marquardt, St. Ferw. 2, 229, is very illuminating in this con- 
nection. It specifies the sum to be paid by the entire commune, and gives 
a list of the possessors, arranged according to pagi, with the amount to be 
paid by each taxpayer. Inscriptions from Thera and Astypalaea (IG. xi, 3, 
1 80, 182, 3439) and fragments of inscriptions from Lesbos and Tralles 
(B.C.H. 4 (1880), 336, 417^.) contain other pertinent information. 

[ 130 ] 


in discussion the people may be thought of as falling into 
three great classes, the possessores, the negotiatores, and the 
coloni. The possessores, or owners of land or of other pro- 
perty, paid the annona or the tribute. The tax on the coloni 
or plebs rusticana extra muros y who presumably had no 
property, was the capitatio plebeia or humana. Perhaps this 
impost may be thought of as the lineal descendant of the 
tributum capitis of the earlier period, but limited in its 
incidence to the lowest class of freemen, and amounting 
essentially to a poll tax. The merchants, or negotiatores y 
were subject to an impost called the collatio lustralis or, 
more fully, the lustralis auri argentine collatio. We find it 
first mentioned as aurum negotiatorium in the reign of 
Alexander Severus 1 . With few exceptions it fell upon all 
those who sold articles of any sort, and it was levied on 
the basis of the capital invested in the business 2 . As the 
name of the tax indicates, it was properly collected every 
five years or every four years, but evidently it was also 
frequently collected when a new emperor ascended the 
throne. Each new emperor found it very important to win 
the support of the troops by giving them largesses, and 
these gratuities had to be given in money. Thus, for 
instance, Julian on being made Augustus in the fourth 
century gave to each soldier five solidi and a pound of 
silver 3 . Each city was required to contribute a specified 
sum. Similar in character was the aurum oblaticium, theo- 
retically a voluntary gift of money made by the Roman 
senate on the accession of an emperor and on certain other 

The officials directly responsible for the collection of 
the taxes were the annually chosen exactores^ who based 
the collection on the lists drawn up by the municipal 
tabularii^ and gathered the taxes with the help of groups 
of susceptoreS) each group being chosen to take charge of 

1 Cf. Hist. Aug. Alex. 32. 5. 2 Cf. Secck, R.E. 4, 370. 

3 Cf. Ammianus, 20. 4. 18 and Seeck, op. cit. 4, 374^. 


a particular kind of impost 1 . Decurions were generally 
selected as susceptores, and the exactores also were usually 
curiales. Even in Egypt, where the civic and fiscal arrange- 
ments at first differed in many respects from those which 
had been adopted elsewhere in the Roman world, the tax 
system under the later empire resembled in many ways 
that which has just been described 2 . The fact that a fixed 
amount was expected of each city and that the decurions 
of the city were called upon to collect this sum dealt a 
fatal blow to municipal government when the prosperity 
of the empire declined. Diocletian's system presupposed 
periodical revisions of the census. If these had been 
made regularly and systematically, and if the taxes of a 
city had been reduced as its property declined in value, 
the cities could have borne their burden, but frequent and 
thoroughgoing revisions were not made, land was aban- 
doned, and tax-payers became insolvent 3 . In point of 
fact the imperial government could not see its way clear 
to reduce the running expenses of the civil and military 
establishments, and the situation was made worse by civil 
and foreign wars. When land was abandoned, some efforts 
were made to collect the lost taxes from adjacent owners 4 , 
to bring lands into cultivation again by settling coloni upon 
them 6 , but in the end the responsibility of paying over 
the taxes to the government rested on the shoulders of 
the curiales*; their lands were made inalienable, they were 
forbidden to leave their civitas, or to escape their responsi- 
bility by entering the army, the civil administration, or 
even a cloister 7 . 

The Egyptian tax system differed in some respects 

1 Cf. Ldcrivain, Diet. Dar. s.v. tributum, 436, col. 2. 

2 Cf. pp. I33/. infra and Wilcken, Gruna*z.uge, 356^. 

3 Cf. L^crivain, op. cit. 434, col. 2. 

4 Cf. Lcrivain, op. cit. 437, col. i. 

5 Cf. Humbert, Diet. Dar. s.v. deserti agri y 107, col. 2. 

6 Cf. Humbert, op. cit. 108, col. I and the references there given to 
Cod. Tk. 12. i. 54; Cod. J. 10. 72 (70). 2, and other sources. 

7 Cf. pp. I03./., 206 ff. 


from the system in vogue elsewhere in the Roman world 
and requires a few words of explanation. The revenues of 
the Ptolemies came chiefly from the rent of the land, for 
all the land in Egypt was owned by the crown. Certain 
monopolies also were controlled by the state and must 
have yielded a good profit. Taxes were levied on buildings, 
stock, and slaves, and a head tax was imposed from which 
Greeks and Macedonians were exempt. Artisans and 
traders paid a license fee. Export and import duties were 
levied. In addition to these taxes liturgies were imposed 
for such public purposes as surveying, the construction 
of irrigation works, the maintenance of the police, the 
entertainment of the court or of public officials on their 
journeys, and the billeting of troops 1 . 

The Romans made very few changes in the Ptolemaic 
system, and in respect to taxation the period from Alex- 
ander the Great to Diocletian may be regarded as a unit 2 . 
Two important changes were made, however, which were 
destined to affect the economic life of Egypt profoundly. 
The court at Alexandria to which tribute had hitherto 
gone was abolished by Augustus, and a tax of twenty 
million Roman bushels of wheat was demanded annually 
for the provisioning of Rome. The tribute paid to the 
Ptolemies had for the most part remained within the 
country, but there was no economic return for the wheat 
sent to the capital. In the second place certain changes 
were introduced in regard to the ownership of land by 
which private tenure was recognized. With the conse- 
quent growth of a propertied class, the introduction of 
such a liturgical system as prevailed in other parts of the 
Orient was made possible. The Ptolemaic administration 
had been carried on by a highly organized bureaucracy, 
in which service was voluntary and requited by the 

1 The subject of tares in Roman Egypt is treated by Wilcken, Gr. 
Ostraka, 422^.; GrunJzugf, 169^*.; Jouguet, Vic munic. 234^.; 385^.; 

2 Wilcken, Grundzuge, 186. 

[ 133 ] 


government. With the development of liturgies by the 
Romans, the Egyptians were forced to give their services 
to the state, and their property was liable to distraint in 
case of default or losses incurred in the discharge of their 
duty 1 , 

The Romans introduced a few new levies such as the 
tax on Jews, on manumissions, and on inheritances. The 
poll tax, which is mentioned only once in the Ptolemaic 
period, was applied more generally than had been the 
case in the previous period. The fixed price for the pur- 
chase of military supplies, in so far as it was below current 
market quotations, virtually constituted a tax on the pro- 
ducer 2 . 

The metropolis of each nome acted merely as an agent 
of the state in collecting the taxes. Apparently the city 
had no public revenue of its own, but in cases where ex- 
penses were incurred, the officials of the metropolis could 
draw upon the reserves of the state funds still on deposit 
in the local treasury, possibly under the supervision of the 
strategus of the nome 3 . 

When Septimius Severus gave a senate to the capitals of 
the nomes, it is probable that there was some reorganiza- 
tion of the financial status of the new cities, but the evi- 
dence bearing on the question is so slight that no clear 
picture of conditions can be presented. The chief revenues 
of cities in other parts of the empire came from lands in 
their territoria. There is no evidence that Severus trans- 
ferred any of the crown lands to the new cities, but since, 
in creating a senate, it was his evident purpose to provide 
greater security for the proper discharge of liturgical 
duties, the new order may have had a greater measure of 
control of the imperial treasury in the metropolis which 
virtually guarded the revenues of the nome. Jouguet 
points out that the powers of the orrpar^yo^ steadily 

1 Bell, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 4 (1917), 86^. 

2 Wilcken, GrunJzuge, 187, 356^., 

3 Jouguet, op. cit. 309^. 


diminished in the third century until the office finally 
disappeared 1 . Its decadence may indicate that the state 
recognized in a passive way that the nome was municipal 
territory. Temple property (ce/oa 777) seems to have come 
under control of the local senates to a certain extent, and 
the state often assigned lands to communal organizations 
for forced cultivation 2 . By gifts, confiscation, and by the 
surrender of land which had been abandoned by owners 
for various reasons, the city acquired a certain amount 
of revenue and became the owner of new territory, 
although in the case of abandoned estates the city ex- 
perienced an increase in burdens rather than in revenues 3 . 
We hear also of water rates, rents of stands in the public 
market, and taxes on buildings 4 . It is possible that 
monopolies of mines and of oil were in some cases taken 
over from the state by the city and exploited in the latter's 
interest 5 . It is probable, however, that the local adminis- 
tration was largely supported by the personal charges of 
the magistrates and of incumbents of liturgical offices. 
Legislation was enacted to restrain the extravagance of 
ambitious office-holders, who had raised the standard of 
outlay so high that it was often difficult to find candidates 
for office 6 . In some cases endowments were provided to 
relieve the expenses attached to liturgies 7 . Under the 
reorganization of the fourth century the system of taxation 
in the Egyptian municipality conformed to that in the 
rest of the empire 8 . 

To return now to another phase of general financial 
conditions in the empire, nothing need be said of the 
imperial taxes levied for a short period, but no clear 
idea can be had of the financial demands made on the 

1 Ibid. 386. 2 Wilcken, Grundzuge, 126. 

: * Jouguet, op. cit. 418. 4 Ibid. 426. 

5 Ibid. 428; cf. no. 204, where the municipality exercises a certain 
amount of control over the guild of weavers. LI. iff. bear on the relation 
of the nome to the municipality in financial matters. 

6 No. 169. 7 No. 189. 8 Bell, he. cit. 

[ 135 ] 


provincials by the central government, unless one takes into 
consideration also the requisitions and other exactions to 
which the people in the provinces were subject especially 
under the republic. The Verrine orations of Cicero, his 
letters from Cilicia, the Annals of Tacitus, and the letters 
of Pliny give us abundant information on this point. Rich 
provincials, like Heraclius 1 , suffered the confiscation of 
their property on some legal pretext. Country districts 
were required to furnish wild animals for games to be 
given in Rome by some friend of a governor 2 . Extortion 
was practiced in securing the grain needed for the 
governor's household 3 , and cities paid large sums for 
altars, statues, and festivals in honor of the governor 4 , 
for honorary deputations to Rome 5 , and for the privilege 
of being relieved from the billeting of soldiers 6 . The 
disastrous effect on the provinces of such practices as 
these is clearly shown in Cicero's account of the condition 
of Cilicia when he took over this province from his pre- 
decessor, Appius 7 . With the establishment of the empire 
these abuses diminished. Provincial governors received 
an adequate salary, so that the temptation to fill their 
pockets by irregular means decreased. They held their 
offices for a longer term than republican governors had, 
and therefore came to know better the needs and difficulties 
of the provincials. The building of roads, the introduction 
of a postal system, and the establishment of provincial 
bureaus at Rome kept them constantly under the super- 
vision of the emperor, and the favor which the early 
emperors showed for the provincial assemblies gave the 
provinces an opportunity to lodge formal complaints 
against extortionate governors. Tacitus records eight 

1 Cic. in Vcrr. 2. 35-42. 2 Cic. adfam. 2. n. 2. 

3 Cic. in Ferr. 2. 169-173. 4 Cic. op. cif. 2. 144^. 

5 Cic. adfam. 3. 8. 2/. 6 Cic. ad Att. 5. 21. 7. 

7 Cic. ad Att. 5. 16. 2: Audivimus nihil aliud nisi imperata cVt*<aAta 
solvere non posse, cJvas omnium venditas; civitatum gemitus, ploratus: 
monstra quaedam non hominis, sed ferae nescio cuius immanis. Quid 
quaeris ? taedet omnino eos vitae. 

[ 136 ] 


cases of provincial governors tried by the senate under 
Tiberius, two under Claudius, and eleven under Nero, 
and in most of these cases the accused governor was 
convicted and punished. The bad practice of making 
contributions to the emperor, which were ostensibly 
voluntary, still continued, and in the later period these 
contributions, as we have seen, were converted into 
required money payments 1 . One new form of exaction 
under the empire, that connected with the cursus publicus, 
gave rise to endless complaints on the part of the pro- 
vincials 2 . In this connection the restriction placed on 
private enterprise in the provinces by the government 
ownership of mines and quarries, by the state monopoly 
in salt, and by the refusal to allow wine and oil to be pro- 
duced in certain districts may be mentioned 3 , but does not 
call for extended comment. 

1 Cf. supra, pp. 13 i/; Seeck, R.E. 3, I543/ 

2 Nos. 51, 156. 3 Frank, Roman Imperialism, 210, 28o/. 

[ '37 ] 


residents of a civitas were practically exempt 
I from the payment of municipal taxes. Local taxation 
JL could not be introduced, because the tax was a sign 
of servitude. Rome could exact tribute, because she was 
mistress of the world, but for citizens of a municipality 
to pay taxes to a government which they themselves had 
established was out of harmony with their way of thinking. 
At the most, municipal charges could be made for the 
enjoyment of certain privileges. A city's revenues came 
largely from the territorium owned by it. The cities con- 
quered by Rome usually owned land adjacent to their walls, 
and Rome commonly allowed them to retain at least a part 
of it. To the colonies an outlying district was assigned 
when they were founded 2 . Generals under the republic 
and emperors not infrequently gave large districts to a 
friendly or favored city. Thus S. Calvinus made large 
additions to the territory of Massilia, and the mother 
city, Ilium, received similar favors at the hands of em- 
perors. Occasionally a city received gifts of land from 
private persons 3 . Many of these dependent districts were 
of great extent. Nemausus had twenty-four oppida attri- 
buta^ and Centuripae owned lands in many parts of Sicily 4 . 
Sometimes a territorium was far away. Arpinum, for in- 
stance, drew most of its revenue from land in Cisalpine 
Gaul 5 . For the use of such land dependent communities 

1 In this chapter, in discussing municipal revenues and expenditure, 
frequent use has been made of the large amount of material collected by 
Liebenam, St. Ferw. Cf. also Laum, Stiftungen in der gr. u. rom. Antikc, 
for endowments in ancient cities. 

2 Kornemann, R.E. 4, 573^. 3 Liebenam, op. cit. io/. 
4 Pliny, N.H. 3. 4. 37; Cic. in Ferr. 3. 108. 

6 Cic. adfam. 13. n. i; CIL. v, 7749, 1. 25. 

[ 138 ] 


paid a fixed sum to the city treasury each year, as we can 
see from the famous award made to Genua in its action 
against the Langenses in 1 17 B.C. 1 Monopolies formed a 
source of municipal revenue in some cases. The banking 
privilege was controlled by eastern cities where they still 
preserved the right to issue a local coinage. The exchange 
of the native money for foreign currency was usually 
regulated by the municipality under imperial supervision 
and leased to private corporations 2 . The problem of 
industrial monopolies is obscure and little evidence can 
be found. Ferries seem to have been controlled by some 
seaport towns 3 . At Urso the charter threatens confiscation 
if anyone owns a tile or pottery factory above a limited 
capacity 4 . This clause may have been inserted because 
the industry was a municipal monopoly. In Egypt the 
towns took over certain industries from the state in later 
times 5 . A source of revenue came from the sale of the 
privilege of citizenship in more favored communities 6 . 
Some cities owned the fishing privileges in adjacent lakes 
or rivers 7 , and these privileges were farmed out 8 . The 
municipal charges which came nearest to being taxes were 
the portoria, the octroi, and the water rates. Probably in 
the early period many towns were allowed to cover port 
duties into the municipal treasury. Athens, for instance, 
enjoyed this privilege at one time 9 , and, as late as the fifth 
century, the Carian city of Mylasa recovered this right, 

1 No. 10. 2 Nos. 8 1, 133, 199; I.B.M. 1000. 

3 Nos. 70, 128; cf. P. Oxy. 1454 for municipal bakers, and no. 124 
for a strike at Ephesus. 

4 No. 26, chap. 76. 5 No. 204. 

6 No. 130; at Tarsus a fee of 500 drachmae was exacted for the grant 
of citizenship (Dio Chrys. 34. 23). Augustus forbade the Athenians the 
right of conferring such decrees for a price (Cassius Dio, 54. 7). 

7 No. 68. In this case the fisheries seem to be the sole source of municipal 
income. Cf. Strabo, 12. 8, p. 576. 

8 Dig. 43. 14. 1,7. 

9 Liebenam, op. cit. 24. In no. 96 the senate grants permission to 
establish a market (cf. nos. 147, 148). Was this permission required because 
of a state or municipal tax which was involved in the concession ? 

[ 139 ] 


which it had enjoyed under the republic, for its harbor 
of Passala 1 . But gradually Rome took over in most cases 
the right to fix and receive port duties. An interesting 
list of duties imposed for the benefit of a municipality 
is furnished by the tariff of A. D. 137 of the inland city of 
Palmyra 2 . The dutiable articles include among other 
things slaves, cattle, salt fish, olive oil, and cloth. From an 
edict of Augustus found at Venafrum 3 , from the Palmyra 
list 4 , and from references in literature 5 , it seems clear 
that many municipalities laid an annual charge at least 
upon the proprietors of industrial establishments and 
private baths, upon the owners of large houses and villas, 
and upon others who drew a large quantity of water from 
the public supply. Some inscriptions, coming from 
Thessalian towns, show that in certain municipalities 
manumitted freedmen paid the fee for manumission into 
the municipal treasury. It is possible that these muni- 
cipalities acted as receivers for the imperial government, 
but it is more probable that the fee in these cases con- 
stituted a municipal charge and not an imperial tax 6 . In 
some oriental cities also priesthoods were sold to the 
highest bidders 7 . 

1 CIL. in, S. 7151; Dessau, Hermes, 19 (1884), 531. Possibly Vespa- 
sian's edict made a similar concession to Sabora in Baetica, cf. no. 61. 

2 This list was published in Aramaic and Greek. For the Aramaic 
version, cf. de Vogue*, Journal asiatique, 8 (1883), srie i, 231^.; n, 
149^.; Schroeder, Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad. 1884, 417 ff. For the 
preface to the Greek version, cf. no. 89. The tariff at Zarai (CIL. vin, 4508) 
was imperial, not municipal, although the dutiable articles are similar to 
those mentioned at Palmyra. The tariff at Koptos (Ditt. Or. Gr. 674) was 

3 No. 33. 4 Dessau, Hermes, 19 (1884), 522. 

5 E.g. Cic. de lege agr. 3. 9. 

6 The fee for manumissions was usually taken by the imperial govern- 
ment (cf. pp. 124^.). That the payment was made to the municipal 
treasury in the case of the towns mentioned, cf. the inscriptions published 
in 'E<. 'Apx- 191 5> 8 ^-> I 9 J 6, 28^"., 73^., 1917, -j ff., \\iff. in which 
the fact is recorded that certain manumitted freedmen paid the fee to the 
municipality according to law (Kara TOV 

7 Cf. p. 79 and n. 6. 


Fines imposed for the violation of local ordinances or 
of the fundamental law of a city of course came into the 
municipal treasury, so long as the local magistrates ex- 
ercised judicial functions. Offenses of the first sort 
included infringement of traffic ordinances, displacement 
of termini^ injuring public property, defiling sacred or 
public places, burying the dead within certain proscribed 
limits, and maltreatment of a tomb or place of burial. 
Hundreds of epitaphs have been found, especially in 
Italy and the Greek East, which threaten with heavy fines 
anyone who violates the sanctity of the tombs on which 
the inscriptions are engraved 1 . Sometimes payment is to 
be made to the imperial fisc 2 , sometimes to a priest- 
hood 3 , but commonly to the municipal treasury 4 . The fine 
threatened amounts in some cases to as much as 100,000 
sesterces 5 . Under what authority such fines could be im- 
posed is a matter of great dispute 6 . Was action taken 
under local ordinances, and did these ordinances fix the 
penalty or leave it to be determined by the builder of the 
tomb? These are difficult questions, which admit of no 
satisfactory answer as yet 7 . It would seem highly im- 
probable, however, that so many epitaphs should threaten 
the imposition of a fine, if it could not be collected by legal 
action. Perhaps the difficulty is explained by the fact that 
municipalities and imperial estates often laid out ceme- 
teries on their land and sold burial lots. In that case there 
would have been legal authority for the imposition of 
these fines. From this source therefore, in certain parts 
of the Roman world, some revenue would come into the 

1 Liebenam, op. cit. 4353. 

2 CIL. in, 168. ' 3 Wilmans, 291. 

4 A typical case is CIL. in, 2098: veto autem in hac area alium corpus 
inferri aut ossua poni; si quis autcm intulerit, dabit rei publicae Salonitarum 
nummum x milia. 6 E.g. CIL. x, 2015. 

6 Liebenam, op. cit. 37 ff. and the literature cited by him, p. 37, n. 4. 

7 Some references to local ordinances have been found (Liebenam, 
op. cit. 42, n. 4) and sometimes the statements on tombstones specifying the 
fine are couched in legal form. 


municipal treasury. The penalties for malfeasance in 
office or for corrupt practices in the elections were very 
severe. A duovir, for instance, convicted of receiving a 
gift from a contractor was subject to a fine of 20,000 
sesterces in the colonia Genetiva Julia 1 , and in the same 
city any person making a gift with a view to his candi- 
dature for office was required to pay 5000 sesterces 2 . 

A surer and larger revenue, however, came into the 
city treasury from the voluntary or required gifts made by 
magistrates or priests on their accession to office. The 
charter of the colonia Genetiva Julia required each duovir 
and aedile to contribute out of his own pocket at least 2000 
sesterces toward the cost of the public games 3 . The initia- 
tion fees in this case were unusually small, because the 
colonists were drawn from the Roman proletariat, and the 
sum mentioned in the charter is the minimum amount 
required, the summa legitima^ to which officials often made 
large additions 4 . Inscriptions record the payment into 
the city treasury by magistrates and priests of sums 
ranging from 3000 to 35,000 sesterces. In one instance, 
at Calama in Africa, a newly elected pontifex contributed 
600,000 sesterces 5 . Mention of these initiation fees is 
made more commonly in the West than in the East. 
Their place was taken in the Greek Orient by the liturgy 
which was imposed there on the richer people in a city 
without regard to their incumbency of office. In fact the 
practice of requiring or expecting contributions from 
newly elected officials in the West may well have been 
suggested by the eastern liturgy. In addition to the 
required or voluntary contributions made by officials 
large gifts were made by private citizens for public pur- 
poses. The spirit of rivalry between the towns of a province 
made each one anxious to surpass its neighbors in the 

1 No. 26, chap. 93. 2 Ibid. chap. 132. 3 Ibid, chaps. 70, 71. 

4 CIL. vin, 8300: statuam quam ob honorem aed. super legitimam ex 
sestertium nn mil. mun. pollicitus ampliata pec. anno suo posuit. Cf. 
also vin, 4594. 5 CIL. vin, 5295. 


beauty and magnificence of its buildings and streets, and 
the local pride which this sentiment developed laid an 
obligation on the wealthy to contribute generously to the 
construction and maintenance of temples, markets, and 
baths, the laying of pavements and sewers, and to the cost 
of public games and festivals 1 . During the early centuries 
of our era, while the empire was prosperous, gifts of this 
sort must have formed an important part of municipal 

Let us turn now to the expense side of an ancient 
municipal budget. One of the items which bulks largest 
in its modern counterpart, the outgo for salaries, found 
no place in it. As we have just noticed, magistrates, 
instead of receiving salaries, helped to pay for the public 
improvements and running expenses of the city, and 
menial labor was performed by slaves which the city 
owned, so that only a few minor officials received pay. 
The public slaves cleaned the streets, took care of the 
public buildings, and performed other similar duties. We 
have left then to consider the construction and repair of 
public works, the prevention of fires, the policing and 
lighting of the streets, and provision for amusement, 
education, charity, the preservation of health, and the 
maintenance of religion. Of these items the expenditure 
for public works and for the amusement of the people 
made the heaviest drain on the city treasury. 

Those who visit today the sites of ancient cities like 
Pompeii or Timgad arc surprised at the number and size 
of the basilicas, colonnades, baths, theatres, market halls, 
arches, and aqueducts which they find. Immense sums 
of money were spent on public works of these kinds, and 
thereby the financial condition of many cities was im- 
perilled. One may recall in this connection the expen- 
diture at Nicomedeia of 3,000,000 sesterces on an aqueduct 
which had to be given up 2 , and the appropriation 

1 Abbott, The Common People of Ancient Rome, 

2 Plin. Epp. aJTrai. 37. i. 

[ H3 ] 


of 10,000,000 sesterces at Nicaea for a theatre which 
was found to be structurally defective before it was com- 
pleted 1 . As we learn from the inscriptions, municipal 
funds for the construction of public buildings were 
lavishly supplemented by private gifts, and sometimes 
legacies were left for the maintenance of the buildings, 
but many cities must have found themselves the proud 
possessors of theatres, colonnades, and market halls, 
whose repair and maintenance made an intolerable drain 
on the public treasury when prosperity declined. Baths in 
particular were a source of great expense. Not only did 
they have to be repaired, but the cost of heating them and 
of furnishing oil to the bathers was heavy. The small city 
of Pompeii had three large public baths, and it would 
seem as if no town in the empire was small enough to get 
on without them. In 387 the emperor could find no more 
severe way to punish the people of Antioch for an uprising 
than to close the public baths of that city. An ancient item 
which is not to be found in a modern municipal budget 
was the cost of building and repairing the city-walls. This 
expense naturally varied from one period to another and 
was different for the different parts of the Roman world. 
For many generations after the position of Italy had been 
made secure, walls were allowed to fall into decay, but the 
pressure of the northern barbarians spurred the Italians 
on to improve their defenses. City-walls in the provinces, 
especially near the frontier, were always kept in better 
repair than those of Italy, and in the later period, when 
the empire was threatened on all sides, a large part of a 
city's revenues had to be devoted to this object 2 . The 
paving of the streets and the nearby roads was of course 
a charge on the municipal budget, and must have been 
heavy because of the costly nature of the ancient system of 
paving. In the early empire the state assumed the cost 
of building and maintaining the main highways, but from 
the third century on this burden fell mainly on the 
1 Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 39. i. 2 Cod. TA. 5. 14. 35, 

[ H4 ] 


municipalities. The cost of constructing and maintaining 
the water and drainage systems in an ancient city must 
have been an important item in the municipal budget. The 
treatise of Frontinus for the city of Rome, the remains 
of aqueducts elsewhere, the large number of public and 
private baths, and the elaborate drainage system brought 
to light in Pompeii all testify to this fact 1 . 

Next in size to the outlay for public works, as we 
noticed above, came the expenditure for amusement, 
especially in the form of public games and festivals. The 
public ludi circenses, ludi scaenici, munera gladiatoria^ and 
venationes were given in connection with some religious 
festival or were in commemoration of some important 
public event, and rapidly increased in number under the 
empire 2 , until under Constantius II there were one 
hundred and seventy-six festivals each year in Rome 3 . 
Numerous inscriptions referring to local public games, 
found in all parts of the empire, show that this form of 
amusement was as popular outside of Rome as it was in the 
capital. The cost of these games, except in so far as it was 
met by the contributions required of magistrates and by 
private gift, was defrayed by the municipality. The central 
government made earnest efforts to check this form of 
local extravagance, but probably without much success 4 . 
While the celebration of religious festivals constituted a 
heavy charge on the local treasury, a city was required 
to pay very little for the maintenance of religious cults, 
because most temples had endowments of their own 5 . The 
cost of policing and lighting the streets, and of protecting 
a city from fire, must have been very small, because little 
attention was paid to these matters 6 . Except in rare cases, 

1 Puchstcin, R.E. 4, 58^. and literature there cited. 

2 For a history of this development, sec Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus J. 
Rbmer, 365399. 

3 CIL. i, 293/. and Wissowa, op. cit. 492-515. 

4 No. 1 10. The imperial tax upon the gladiators virtually fell upon the 
municipality or those who gave the shows. 

5 Liebenam, op. cit. 6qff. 6 Ibid. 153, 357jf., 408, n. 2. 

AMA [ 145 ] 10 


municipalities paid out little money for education 1 , for 
public libraries 2 , or for charity 3 . In one respect only did 
the cities make a systematic effort to relieve the poor. 
Many of them imitated the capital in supplying grain to 
the needy at a low price 4 . This form of charity, if it de- 
serves to have that word applied to it, must be distin- 
guished of course from the altmenta. Italian municipalities 
had some control over the alimenta^^ but they did not 
supply the funds for the purpose 6 , and therefore a 
consideration of this subject does not come within the 
scope of this chapter. 

We are especially concerned with the attitude which 
the central government took toward the municipalities 
in the matter of their finances. In general it adopted the 
policy of rewarding those who were friendly and of 
punishing those who were hostile. For the firm stand 
which it took in favor of Rome in the Mithradatic war 
Sulla made several neighboring villages dependent on 
Stratonicea in Caria 7 . Amisus in Pontus won the favor 
of Lucullus and received an addition of one hundred 
and twenty stadia to its territorium*. On the other hand 
Caesar deprived Massilia of most of its territorium because 
of its opposition to him in 48 B.C. 9 Other instances of a 
similar kind occur in the later period. 

So far as the portoria were concerned, we have already 

1 Barbagallo, Lo stato e I'istruzione pubbl. nelT Imp. rom. 

2 For the city of Rome, cf. Boyd, Public Libraries and Literary Culture 
in Ancient Rome\ for other cities, cf. Llibker's Reallexikon, i6g/. and the 
literature there cited, and Cagnat, Les bibliotheques municipals Jans 
rempire romaine. 

3 Liebenam, op. cit. 98^*. 

4 Ibid. 109^. The compulsion to sell supplies at a fixed price, in so far 
as this was below the current quotations, virtually formed a tax upon the 
producers. Cf. no. 90. 

5 Hirschfeld, 21 $ff. 6 Kubitschek, R.E. i, 1484^. 

7 B.C.H. 9 (1885), 437-474 and Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d'Asie, 

26/, 37, 3 8 > 8l >' no - 17- 

8 Appian, Mithr. 83; Plutarch, Luc. 19. 

9 Cassias Dio, 41. 25; Florus, 2. 13; Oros. 6. 15. 7. 

[ 146 ] 


noticed that Rome followed the general policy of taking 
these over for her own use 1 . She probably adopted this 
policy not only for the sake of the revenue which the 
customs duties brought her, but, if she had left the right 
of imposing them to the municipalities, some coast towns 
might have abolished their tariffs altogether, and diverted 
all the seagoing trade from their rivals. Perhaps reference 
is made to the assumption by the central government of 
the right of collecting the portoria in the brief account 
which Suetonius gives of the policy of Tiberius in this 
matter 2 . Certain of the later emperors, for instance, 
Hadrian, Alexander Severus, and Julian, reversed this 
policy and allowed the vectigalia to be paid into the 
municipal treasury 3 . In Hadrian's case this act of gene- 
rosity may have been due to his interest in the provinces. 
Alexander Severus and Julian may well have made their 
concessions because of the financial needs of the munici- 
palities concerned. 

With the establishment of the empire came a better 
acquaintance with provincial conditions and greater sym- 
pathy with provincial needs. It is an interesting thing to 
notice that the last paragraph of the Res Gestae Divi 
Augusti records the generosity of Augustus toward cities 
destroyed by fire or earthquake 4 . The statement does not 
come from the pen of Augustus. It stands in a supple- 
ment which was added, probably, under the instructions 
of a local magistrate of Ancyra. The rest of the appendix 
simply summarizes the document proper. The item in 
question, however, is not mentioned in the main body of 
the text. It seems therefore to be a tribute to Augustus, 
spontaneous or official, from the point of view of a 


2 Plurimis etiam civitatibus et privatis veteres immunitates et ius metal- 

lorum ac vectigalium adempta, Suet. Tib. 49. 

3 For Hadrian's action in the case of Stratonicea, cf. no. 83. Alexander 
Severus (Hist. Aug. Alex. Scv. 21) "vectigalia civitatibus ad proprias fab- 
ricas deputavit." Cf. Ammianus (25. 4. 15) who says of Julian, vectigalia 
civitatibus restituta cum fundis. 4 No. 38. 

[ 147 ] 


provincial living in a part of the world where the generosity 
of the emperor had been especially shown, and it may not 
be unnatural to think that the writer of it felt that the 
generous efforts of Augustus in behalf of cities in distress 
marked a new era in the relations between Rome and the 
municipalities. Both Suetonius 1 and Cassius Dio 2 speak 
of the help which Augustus gave to many cities injured 
by earthquakes, and we hear specifically of assistance 
rendered to Neapolis 3 and Paphos 4 . Tiberius followed 
this policy 5 , notably in the case of the fourteen cities of 
Asia which were destroyed by an earthquake 6 , and similar 
acts of generosity are set down to the credit of Claudius, 
Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and of emperors of the second 
century 7 . The personal interest of Trajan and Hadrian 
in the provincial cities went still farther, Trajan built 
roads and bridges and dug canals in the Danubian region, 
in Spain and Egypt 8 , and the tribute of Hadrian's bio- 
grapher that in omnibus paene urbibus aliquid aedificavit* is 
abundantly confirmed by the records 10 . The emperors were 
especially generous in helping cities to construct their 
aqueducts, and we have many inscriptions commemo- 
rating the assistance which they rendered for this purpose 1 * . 
We have already had occasion to notice that as the danger 
from the barbarians increased it was necessary to rebuild 
and strengthen the walls of many cities 12 . This measure 
was so vital to the safety of the empire that the central 
government sometimes devoted a part of the imperial 
revenue to this purpose and sometimes compelled a city 
to apply to it a fixed portion of its receipts. Alexander 
Severus helped cities to restore their walls, and Liebenam 
recalls the fact that Constantius in the year 358 turned 

1 No. 38 and cf. Suet. Aug. 47. 2 Cass. Dio, 54. 23 and 30. 

3 Ibid. 55. 10. 4 Ibid. 54. 23. 5 Suet. Tib. 8. 

6 CIL. x, 4842; Tac. Ann. ^. 47; 4. 13. 

7 Liebenam, op. cit. 172 f. 

8 Schiller, Gesch. d. rom. Kaiserzeit, i, $67 f. 

9 Hist. Aug. Ha Jr. 19. 2. 10 v. Rohden, R.E. i, 
11 E.g. Liebenam, op. cit. 158, n. i. 12 Cf. supra, p. 144. 

[ 148 ] 


over one-fourth of the revenue from the vectigalia to be 
used in building the walls of the cities of Africa, and 
Diocletian recommended the diversion to a similar purpose 
of municipal funds collected for public games 1 . On the 
other hand, there was a growing tendency to put imperial 
charges on the treasuries of the municipalities. Cases in 
point are the building and mending of the roads and the 
maintenance of the cursus -publicus^. 

We shall have occasion in another connection to see how 
the cities lost control in large measure of their own funds 3 , 
but it may not be inappropriate here to notice the way in 
which the imperial government was led to undertake the 
supervision of municipal finances. In his Verrine orations 
and in his letters from Cilicia Cicero describes the de- 
sperate condition in which the cities of Sicily and Cilicia 
found themselves in his day in consequence of the taxes 
and requisitions imposed upon them and the exactions 
of money lenders 4 . Many of these evils grew less under 
the empire, but the unwise and extravagant expenditure 
of money, in the eastern cities especially, frequently got 
them into serious difficulties. It was this situation which 
led the central government to interfere in their financial 
affairs. Perhaps a way was paved for such intervention 
by the establishment of imperial commissions to super- 
intend the spending of money appropriated from the 
imperial treasury for the rebuilding of cities destroyed by 
earthquakes or fire 5 . If the central government was to 
bring relief and assume a certain measure of control of 
local finances when the property of a city had been lost 
in a fire or destroyed by an earthquake, why should it not 
take some responsibility for the finances of a city which 

1 Cf. an inscription of A.D. 227 {An. //>. 1917-8, no. 68): Infatigabile 
indulgentia domini Severi Alexandri Pii Fclicis Aug. auctis viribus et 
moenibus suis castellan(i) cito Factenses muros extruxerunt curante Licin/o 
Hieroclet/ procuratore Aug(usti) praeside provinciac a(nno) p(rovinciae) 
CLXXXVIII; cf. also Liebenam, op. clt. 144, n. I and commentary on no. 157. 

2 Nos. 51, 156 and supra, p. 137. 3 Cf. pp. 200 ff. 

4 Cf. pp. 1 2 1 ff. 6 Tac. Ann. 2, 47 and supra, p. 147. 


was wasting its funds in elaborate stadia or theatres ? To 
Pliny there seemed to be only one answer to this question 
for the cities under his jurisdiction, and when he found 
that the people of Nicaea had almost completed a theatre, 
which was structurally defective, at a cost of 10,000,000 
sesterces, and a gymnasium which was badly built, he 
at once intervened and turned to Trajan for advice 1 . In 
like manner, Claudiopolis was constructing a bathhouse 
on a badly chosen site 2 , and Nicomedeia had spent 
3,000,000 sesterces for an aqueduct which had to be 
abandoned 3 , and again Pliny asks Trajan what steps he 
shall take in the matter. Prusa petitions the emperor for 
permission to build a bathhouse 4 , and Amastris to cover 
a sewer 5 . Even for the free city of Sinope Pliny asks of 
Trajan the right to construct an aqueduct 6 . He takes 
cognizance of many other matters connected with the 
finances of the municipalities. Annual allowances made 
by Byzantium for the expenses of one legate to Rome 
and another to the governor of Moesia are cut off 7 . The 
extravagance attendant on weddings and festivals is 
limited 8 . The propriety of requiring an initiation fee from 
men whose names are put on the rolls of the municipal 
senates is referred to Trajan 9 . To him is referred the claim 
of Nicaea to the property of citizens who die intestate 10 , 
and the right of the cities of Bithynia and Pontus to be 
preferred creditors 11 . In one of his letters Pliny submits 
to Trajan a question that is one of the earliest indications 
which we have of the coming of the later ruinous policy 
of holding the decurions of a city personally responsible 
for its financial obligations 12 . Some of the towns in Pliny's 
province find it hard to loan their public funds at 1 2 per 
cent., and Pliny asks Trajan if he may force the decurions 
to borrow the money at this rate. The empire was not yet 
ready for this step, and Trajan did not approve the pro- 

1 Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 39. i, 4. 2 Ibid. 39. 5, 6. 3 Ibid. 37. 

4 Ibid. 23. 5 Ibid. 98. 6 Ibid. 90. 7 Ibid 43 

Ibid. 1 16, 1 17. 9 Ibid. 112. 10 Ibid. 84. Ibid. 108. 12 Ibid. 54. 

[ ISO ] 


posal. The most far-reaching question in the correspond- 
ence, connected with the imperial control of municipal 
finances, concerns the right of the governor to inspect 
municipal accounts. Pliny examined the accounts of 
Prusa without hesitation 1 , but when he proposed to look 
into those of Apamea, the people, while expressing a 
willingness in this particular case to submit to the scrutiny, 
stated that (rationes coloniae) numquam tamen esse lectas 
ab ullo proconsulum, habuisse privilegium et vetustissi- 
mum morem arbitrio suo rem publicam administrare 2 . 
Trajan, in his reply, advises Pliny to proceed with the 
examination, with the understanding that it will not 
prejudice their existing privileges. We can readily see, 
however, that this procedure in the case of a Roman 
colony set a dangerous precedent. We have followed the 
policy of Pliny in these matters in some detail, because it 
illustrates the paternal motives which actuated the im- 
perial government in exercising a close oversight over the 
finances of provincial cities. Under the republic such 
supervision was impossible, but in the time of Trajan, 
with a governor well supplied with subordinates, and 
holding office long enough to be thoroughly familiar with 
local conditions, and with bureaus in Rome ready to 
answer promptly all sorts of provincial inquiries, it was 
possible to supervise carefully the finances of every city 
of the empire, and it does not surprise us to find the 
practices which Pliny followed in controlling municipal 
expenditures given a systematic form by his imperial 
master through the establishment of the new imperial 
office of curator rei publicae*. 

No discussion of the finances of the municipalities 
would be complete without some reference to the method 
followed in the adjustment of financial controversies 
between neighboring cities, but the way in which these 
and other disputes were settled will be discussed in another 
connection 4 . 

1 Ibid. 17. 2 Ibid. 47. 3 See pp. 90^. 4 See pp. 

[ '51 ] 


f ^ HE principle of arbitral settlement of international 
I disputes was familiar in the ancient oriental king- 
A doms almost from the beginning of recorded 
history, but in the growth of great empires that equality 
between independent powers which is essential for the 
proper development of arbitration was destroyed 1 . In 
Greece the rise of a large number of small independent city- 
states produced ideal conditions for fostering this system 
of settling disputes, since war was uncertain in its results, 
and the loss of power and resources, even in a successful 
campaign, was not always compensated by gaining the 
point at issue. For this reason the disputants often pre- 
ferred to refer their quarrel to the decision of some 
neutral and impartial judge, or some friendly state might 
intervene with an offer of mediation or arbitration. 
Whether the Greeks borrowed this idea from the Orient 
or discovered it for themselves cannot be determined, but 
we owe to them the introduction of arbitration into Europe 2 . 
There are well authenticated examples of arbitral settle- 
ments in the seventh century, and as early as the fifth 
the Greeks had developed the principle so far that treaties 
were made containing a clause whereby the contracting 
parties agreed to settle in this way disputes which might 
arise in the future. Unfortunately the Greek states were 

1 The best treatment of the subject of arbitration in Roman history is 
found in De Ruggiero, U arbitrate pubblico presso i Romani. His classifica- 
tion of the different examples in Roman history has been followed in this 
chapter. Tod (International Arbitration amongst the Greeks) and Raeder 
(U arbitrage international chez les Hellenes) have recently discussed briefly 
those cases of arbitration wherein Rome was called upon to decide disputes 
arising between Greek cities. Cf. Boak, Am. Journal of International Law, 
1 5 (1921), 37Sff' 

2 Westermann, C.J. 2 (1906), 198; Tod, op. cit. 169^. 


no better than modern nations in observing treaty obliga- 
tions, and this provision was not always kept. A notable 
instance is the refusal of the Spartans to submit their 
dispute with Athens to arbitration before the outbreak of 
the Peloponnesian war. 

In the third century examples of international arbitra- 
tion among the Greeks are frequently recorded. Under 
this head we may include the disputes which arose 
between members of the great federal leagues that were 
usually settled by the central government, which also 
enforced the decision under the necessity of preserving 
internal peace and concord. In most cases of arbitration 
in this period we may note a tendency to appeal to some 
power or state whose prestige was great enough to make 
the decision respected. Thus the kings of Macedon were 
frequently requested to act as arbiters. After the conquest 
of Macedon, when Rome became a factor in eastern 
politics, the Greek cities frequently referred their disputes 
to the senate, and, in so doing, introduced the principle 
of arbitration into Roman political life. 

The history of Rome's part in international arbitration 
is somewhat complicated by the relations existing between 
Rome and Greece after the issuance of the edict of Flami- 
ninus. While the Greek states remained virtually inde- 
pendent, Rome exercised a modified form of protectorate, 
and did not hesitate to interfere in the settlement of internal 
or inter-state quarrels. But so lofig as a city was nominally 
free and not incorporated in a Roman province, the 
settlement of its disputes with a neighbor by an appeal 
to Roman magistrates or to the senate may be considered 
as a true case of international arbitration. Since all such 
appeals came from Greek cities, the history of international 
arbitration in Rome began with her first contact with the 
East and ended when she became mistress of the Orient. 
Since the senate controlled the conduct of foreign rela- 
tions, all these disputes were referred to this body or to 
her agents who transmitted the appeal to Rome. The only 

[ 153 ] 


recorded exception is the settlement of the dispute between 
Cnossus and Gortyna, which was decided by Appius 
Claudius and his fellow-commissioners 1 . In this case, 
however, the commission probably had plenipotentiary 
powers to examine the condition of Greek cities and to 
settle disputes. 

While the senate decided some of the disputes referred 
to it, certain questions such as the determination of 
boundaries could not be settled at a distance, and these 
were delegated to a special commission or to another state. 
The delegation of powers was made in a senatus consultum^ 
and the question to be decided by the arbitrator was often 
very narrowly defined. Thus in the dispute between 
Athens and Oropus, Sicyon was asked merely to deter- 
mine the penalty to be inflicted on Athens 2 . Magnesia 
on the Maeander was asked by Rome to arbitrate between 
Hierapytna and Itanus, but in so doing the only point to 
be determined was which state occupied the disputed 
territory at a certain date 3 . The dispute between Magnesia 
and Priene was delegated to Mylasa under the same 
conditions 4 . 

In the instructions given by the senate we find that there 
is often a desire on the part of Rome not so much to render 
a judicial decision on the point at issue, as to preserve 
the status which the disputants had held when they came 
into political relations with Rome. This policy may have 
been adopted for the purpose of cementing treaty rela- 
tions, but it is not altogether in accord with the principles 
of strict justice. Rome cannot justly be accused, however, 
of using the arbitral awards as a means of extending her 
power over the eastern cities. She did not use her extra- 
ordinary power either in enforcing the decisions which 
she or her delegates had pronounced, or in guaranteeing 

1 Polybius, 33. 15. We may assume that Roman agents settled many 
other similar disputes in Greece. 

2 Pausanias, 7. n. 4-8. 3 Inschriftcn von Magnesia, 105. 
4 Inschriftcn von Priene ', 531 ; Inschriftcn von Magnesia, 93. 

[ 154 ] 


the terms of settlement. Athens not only appealed from 
the decision of Sicyon against her in the quarrel with 
Oropus, but even evaded the reduced penalty which the 
senate imposed by making a private settlement with 
Oropus 1 . In the dispute between Samos and Priene the 
senate confirmed a previous award made by Rhodes. In 
136 the case was again referred to Rome, but no change 
was made in the decision. Even after both cities had 
become incorporated in the province of Asia, the quarrel 
broke out afresh, and this time Mylasa was deputed to 
review the case 2 . Likewise the dispute over temple-lands 
at Delphi was reopened at least twice after Greece had 
become a Roman province 3 . In arbitrating the dispute 
between the Achaean League and Sparta the Romans 
exceeded their function in violating the sovereign power 
of both disputants. Sparta was required to remain a 
member of the League, but the latter was compelled to 
resign her judicial authority over Spartan citizens 4 . 

Where states were quasi-independent, possessing juris- 
diction over their internal affairs, but acknowledging the 
hegemony of Rome in foreign relations, inter-state dis- 
putes could only be adjudicated by a direct appeal to 
Rome, since the reference of the question to any other 
state would have been regarded as an offense to the 
sovereign power. In these cases the arbitration was not 
always purely voluntary, for if one side appealed to Rome, 
the other was virtually compelled to present its case unless 
it chose to let the judgment go by default. This class of 
arbitration is known as federal, since one or both of the 
parties to the dispute were bound to Rome by treaties of 

In the earliest recorded case of federal arbitration, if the 
traditional account in Livy is to be believed, two members 
of the Latin League quarreled over a piece of land, and 
when the dispute was referred to Rome, the comitui tributa 

1 Pausanias, 7. n. 48. 2 Tod, op. cit. nos. 6165. 

3 Ibid. no. 26. 4 de Ruggiero, op. cit. 

[ 155 ] 


took the matter out of the hands of the senate and voted 
that the land in question should belong to Rome 1 . There 
is much about this story which renders it unlikely, but if 
it is true, we can well understand why arbitration did not 
become popular amongst Rome's allies in Italy. 

The dispute between Sparta and Messene over the 
possession of the ager Dentheliates forms one of the most 
interesting cases which come within the scope of federal 
arbitration. Philip of Macedon in 338 and Antigonus in 
221 had acted as arbiters in this long-standing dispute. 
Then Mummius in 1465, if we may believe the account 
in Tacitus, pronounced a decision, but from the wording 
of the decree of the Milesians, it would appear that he 
merely recognized the status quo. Between 146 and 137 
the dispute was again brought before the senate, which 
referred the question to Miletus, at that time an inde- 
pendent state. The Milesians were instructed to determine 
only which of the two parties occupied the disputed terri- 
tory when Mummius was consul or proconsul. The 
Milesians chose by lot a court of 600, and when the 
evidence was heard the court voted 584 to 16 in favor of 
Messene 2 . It may be noted that no attempt was made to 
determine the legality of the claim of either party, but that 
Rome was concerned solely in determining the status of 
the territory when one or other of the two states became 
politically related to Rome. This solution of the problem 
was manifestly unjust, and showed undue favor to Rome's 
allies. So Caesar, in his interview with Ariovistus, states 
it as an axiom of Rome's foreign policy that her allies 
should suffer no loss, but rather should be increased in 
influence, dignity, and honor 3 . In this respect, then, 
Rome's arbitral judgments were dictated by the desire to 
extend her influence and to bind her allies to her by 
shaping the arbitral awards in their favor. 

A somewhat similar situation is found in the dispute 
between Carthage and Masinissa, which seems to have 
1 de Ruggiero, op. cit. 26%f. 2 Ibid. 283^. 3 Caesar, E.G. i. 43. 

[ 156 ] 


been deliberately prolonged by the senate in order to 
weaken the power of her former enemy, now, however, 
formally regarded as an ally. In 193 the senate appointed 
a commission which made no decision, probably in 
obedience to secret instructions from the home authorities. 
Masinissa was thus encouraged in his acts of aggression 
and occupied other territory which, when Carthage 
appealed to Rome, was apparently granted to Masinissa. 
In 1 60 the injustice of Rome was still more flagrant in her 
award to the Numidian king, for Carthage was compelled 
to cede the town of Emporia in addition to the land which 
he had already occupied and to pay an indemnity of 500 
talents. When Masinissa seized further territory some 
three years later and Carthage appealed to Rome, the 
Carthaginians refused to entrust their cause to the 
arbitrators whom Rome sent out, and, apparently, the 
Numidian was allowed to remain in possession 1 . In 
Rome's conduct of arbitral relations in these disputes we 
find one of the darkest chapters in her judicial history. 
No doubt the bitter prejudice against Carthage and high 
imperial policy dictated her decisions, but these con- 
siderations furnish no excuse for the violation of the 
principles of justice, and her guilt is the greater in that 
Carthage was bound to her by a treaty of friendship and 
alliance. In later federal arbitration Rome recovered her 
judicial sanity, since her position as a dominant power 
in the Mediterranean was secure. In the few cases of 
this class which belong to later times none gives any 
indication of favoritism on the part of Rome. As a matter 
of fact, the extension of Roman power in the last century 
of the republic had brought most of the ancient city-states 
under the Roman provincial system, and cases of inter- 
national and federal arbitration could no longer occur. 

While it is true that many of the cities still retained the 
nominal title of "free" or "allied" states, there are no 
records of disputes which arose involving them, and 

1 dc Ruggiero, op. cit. 

[ 157 ] 


apparently when once they had become incorporated in 
provinces, their disputes were settled by the central 
authority on the same basis as the disputes of other states 
under Roman dominion. This method of settling disputes 
is called administrative arbitration, and of this class we 
possess a large number of records, ranging from the begin- 
ning of provincial government up to the end of the third 
century of the Christian era, and found in every part of 
the empire. Most questions of administrative arbitration 
concern boundary disputes arising between adjacent 
municipalities, or between municipalities and state or 
imperial domains. Some of these quarrels were inherited 
from pre-Roman times, but others developed under 
Roman administration in cases where boundaries had not 
been definitely determined in the settlement of a province, 
or where the creation of new municipal organizations gave 
rise to litigation in the delimitation of territorial possess- 
ions. Disputes also arose over water rights in connection 
with rivers, or over roads, or took the form of quarrels 
like that between Pompeii and Nuceria. In these cases 
the local authorities were without jurisdiction, and the 
sovereign power was called upon to settle the dispute. It 
was impossible for cities in such cases to have recourse 
to war or to choose some foreign state as arbiter, since 
either procedure would have been offensive to the sove- 
reign power of Rome. While the lex Rupilia allowed 
Sicilian towns to call upon another city to decide disputes 
arising between them and their citizens, there is no 
evidence that similar latitude was allowed in boundary 
settlements, although Mucius Scaevola invited Sardis and 
Ephesus to settle their differences by arbitration and to 
call in any city which they chose as arbiter 1 . Not in- 
frequently a third state was appointed as arbiter in dis- 
putes which arose between Greek cities, but more com- 
monly the senate, or emperor, named a special commission 
or some official to act. In such cases the delegated power 
1 Cicero, in Verr. 2. 12. 13; Inschriften von Pergamurn, 268. 

[ 158 ] 


was plenipotentiary, and the decision was not subject to 
review by the central authority. 

When the local authorities were not able to control 
internal factions, and the magistrates appealed to the 
central government, or, as in one case, to the patron of the 
city, the settlement of the dispute was sometimes arranged 
by arbitration, which may be classed as administrative. 
Sulla was delegated by the senate to settle a quarrel among 
the citizens of Puteoli, and to frame a new constitution for 
the city 1 . In imperial times the senate appointed two of its 
members to settle a similar dispute in this city. In Pompeii 
the patron of the town was accepted by both factions as 
arbiter apparently without any reference of the quarrel 
to the senate 2 . Doubtless the numerous commissions and 
special agents sent out from Rome to the provinces acted 
as arbiters in settling the disputes of party factions, and in 
so doing they favored the aristocratic class. Although the 
local authorities were empowered to settle all questions 
concerning internal affairs, the sovereign power exercised 
by the senate or by the emperors gave them authority to 
interfere in the local affairs of all provincial cities. By 
virtue of this authority Trajan and his successors appointed 
the curatores rei publicae and correctores, by whom local dis- 
putes were settled by administrative processes without 
recourse to arbitration. 

A third class of cases of arbitration may be distinguished 
in the disputes which arose between cities and private 
individuals, whether alien or resident citizens 3 . As we 
have already indicated, the lex Rupilia allowed Sicilian 
cities to call upon the services of another city in arbitrating 
such disputes, and this arrangement was probably allowed 
in other provinces. But where the local authorities 
possessed jurisdiction, cases of appeal to arbitration are 
comparatively rare, nor was the appeal necessarily made 
to Rome, or to the governor, but could be made to another 

1 Plutarch, Sulla, 37. 2 Cicero, fro P. Sulla, 21, 60, 61. 

3 de Ruggiero, op. cit. <)6ff. 

[ 159 ] 


city in the province or to a private citizen. In most cities, 
however, the local magistrates did not have jurisdiction 
over Roman citizens, and in disputes arising between a 
city and Romans the case must of necessity be referred 
to the governor, who, however, had the right to appoint 
arbiters if he so desired. 

Finally, there is a series of disputes which arose between 
the cities and the Roman state, or rather its representatives 
the publicans 1 . We may also include here the boundary 
disputes arising over the municipal lands and those of the 
state or of the emperor. In such cases the state might 
settle the dispute by regular administrative methods, but 
in some instances the question was referred to the decision 
of an arbiter appointed by the senate or by the emperor. 

Arbitral procedure was foreign to Roman policy and 
was introduced only through contact with, and under 
the influence of, Greek culture. Its continuance in imperial 
times was apparently determined by a desire on the part 
of the central government to flatter the vanity of the city- 
states which had been incorporated in the empire. In the 
third century the military autocracy was no longer in- 
fluenced by these motives, and records of arbitral judg- 
ments disappear. Henceforth the settlement of all 
disputes passed to the regular provincial courts or became 
a matter of ordinary administrative routine. 

The special relation which civitates foederatae bore to 
Rome ceased to exist in Italy after the towns received 
Roman citizenship. In other parts of the empire very few 
states enjoyed the privilege offoedus aequum with Rome. 
Some of these jealously maintained their rights, as, for 
example, when the Amiseni appealed to Rome in regard 
to the law forbidding the organization of clubs in Bithynia 2 . 
Trajan replied that if the laws of the city permitted such 
associations, the imperial authorities could not forbid them 
provided the clubs were not devoted to seditious or illegal 
gatherings. There is an undertone in Trajan's letter which 
1 de Ruggiero, op. cit. <)<)ff- ; nos. 1 2, 1 8. 2 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 92,93. 

[ 160 ] 


implies that treaties would be respected only if they did 
not contravene the best interests of Rome. In 210 the 
Camerinians thanked Septimius Severus for confirming 
the right of foedus aequum^ and in Astypalaea the treaty 
with Rome was maintained as late as the reign of Gordian 1 . 
The lex de imperio Vespasiani placed the power of making 
treaties in the hands of the emperor, confirming the 
privilege which Augustus had held. The economic 
pressure which began to be severe in the second century 
probably led many cities to surrender their special privi- 
leges. Thus we find an imperial corrector in Athens under 
Hadrian 2 . The edict of Caracalla probably swept away 
other treaties when the cities accepted Roman citizenship, 
although it is evident that Astypalaea preserved her status 
as a civitas foederata for some time longer. 

In the eastern empire coins were frequently struck 
celebrating the 6/ioi/oia of various states 3 . It is impossible 
to determine exactly what is meant by this term under 
Roman rule, but it seems to indicate that the Romans 
permitted these states to conclude some form of treaty 
which flattered their vanity and infringed in no way on 
Roman sovereignty. With the development of the 
bureaucracy and the military autocracy the fiction of 
sovereignty which the Romans had permitted as a matter 
of policy soon disappeared. 

1 CIL. xi, 5631. 2 CIL. vin, 7059. 

3 Head, Historia Nummorum, s.v. 6/xdvota. 



IN the organization of a conquered province the 
senate treated with each city and each tribe as an in- 
dividual unit. Under the republic the governor, who 
was sent out with the imperium^ had no tribune to interpose 
a veto on his acts, and the provincial subjects had no means 
to check illegal action or extortion except through indirect 
pressure applied by their patron in Rome. After the 
governor laid down his command, he might be prosecuted 
before a jury made up of members of the senate, but it 
was difficult and practically impossible to secure a con- 
viction before a court of his peers. Later, when the juries 
were composed of members of the equestrian order and 
party feeling had become intensified, convictions were 
easier to obtain, although the court was not so much 
prompted by a desire to secure justice for the provincials 
as it was concerned in furthering the interests of the 
equites. In appearing before the court the provincials 
had no other bond than their common interests, and each 
city acted singly, or their delegates represented munici- 
palities which had united to present their complaints 
before the senate. Since it was the policy of the Romans to 
discourage combinations of the different communities in 
each province, it is very unlikely that the lex provinciae 
provided any machinery for common action, but in the 
informal meeting of representatives of two or more towns 
for the discussion of matters of mutual interest we may 
discern the beginnings of a provincial assembly 1 . 

1 Marquardt, de Romanarum provinciarum conciliis et sacerdotibus\ 
Guiraud, Les assemblies prov.; Carette, Les assemblies prov. de la Gaule 
rom.\ Fougres, de communi Lyciorum; Monceaux, de communi provinciae 
Asiae\ Diet. Dar. s.v. KOU/OJ/; Kornemann, R.E. s.v. concilium, KOIVOV; 

[ 162 ] 


In the East the Romans found a large number of KOIVOL 
already existing, of which some were religious organiza- 
tions, and others political federations. In Greece Flami- 
ninus encouraged those which might serve to check the 
power of Macedon. After the sack of Corinth by Mum- 
mius political unions were suppressed in the fear that 
they might form centres for the revival of a national 
consciousness 1 . Later the ban was removed and the 
assemblies were permitted to meet for religious purposes. 
Similar organizations existed in Asia, and shortly after 
the province was established we find games instituted by 
the cities in honor of the governor, Mucius Scaevola, who 
held the office about 98 B.C. 2 Antony addressed a letter 
to the KOLVOV of Asia granting certain privileges to the 
guilds taking part in the provincial games 3 . This action 
must have been taken in response to a request from the 
assembly and, although no political issue was involved, 
it is apparent that the delegates from the cities of Asia were 
developing an organization in which questions of common 
interest might come up for discussion. 

In 29 B.C. the cities of Asia in their provincial organiza- 
tion requested that they be allowed to establish the cult of 
Roma and Augustus at Pergamum 4 . In granting their 
request the emperor established a precedent which was 
soon followed by the other provinces. In some cases we 
find two distinct provincial assemblies, as in Bithynia- 
Pontus, Galatia, Lycia-Pamphylia, and Syria. In Achaea 
the local KOIVO. of Central Greece united their assemblies 
in a joint federation which seems to have represented the 
province 5 . Thessaly preserved the independence of its 

Krascheninnikoff, Philol, 53 (1894), 147^*.; Ramsay, Journ. Rom. St. 
12 (1922), i^ff. 

1 Pausanias, 7. 16. 9. 2 Ditt. Or. Gr. 438; Ditt. Syll? 760. 

3 Brandis thinks that Antony established the provincial concilium in 
Asia about 33-32 (Hermes ^ 32 (1897), 512^.). 

4 Tac. Ann. 4. 37; Cass. Dio, 51. 20. 

5 We find this prescript: TO KOIVOI' TU>V ^ A \atwv KOL BOUDTUJV *ai 
AoKp<i3i/ /cat Kv/2ocW KOL 4>o>Kcoi', 7G. vn, 271 1. 

[ 163 ] II-2 


assembly, since this district was separated for adminis- 
trative purposes from the rest of Greece and placed under 
the control of the governor of Macedon in the imperial 
period. While the meeting-place of the provincial KOWQV 
was usually fixed in some convenient centre, the leading 
cities of Asia, Lycia, and Lycaonia shared the honor in 

In the West the provincial assemblies were slower in 
developing than in the East. Municipal institutions re- 
placed the tribal units slowly and the majority of the 
provinces lacked the political traditions of the Orient 
which might have given them a feeling of unity. Outside 
Gaul there was no common cult such as had united many 
Greek cities in their KOLVOL. Moreover, the religious 
mentality of the western peoples differed widely from that 
of the Orient, and was less facile in adopting new cults, 
especially in accepting a cult which deified a reigning 
emperor. We have already seen that even under the 
republic the western provinces had informal organizations 
in which the cities could unite in conducting prosecutions 
of officials and in sending embassies to Rome. An edict 
of Augustus forbade the provincials to take any action 
in praising a governor until sixty days after he left his 
province 1 , but it is not necessary to infer that provincial 
assemblies existed generally at this period (2 B.C.). The 
first formal organization of such an assembly may be 
found in Tres Galliae when Drusus called representatives 
of the various civitates to Lugudunum in 12 B.C. The 
worship of the imperial cult was founded at that time 2 . 
This gathering formed the nucleus of a provincial assembly 
which met annually thereafter at the same place. In A. D. 15 
the cities of Hispania Tarraconensis requested the privi- 
lege of founding a temple of Augustus in Tarraco, and 
Tacitus observes that the granting of this petition formed 
a precedent for other provinces 3 . This would imply that 

1 Cass. Dio, 56. 25. 2 Kornemann, op. cit. 8og/. 

3 Tac. Ann. i. 78. 

[ 164 ] 


the initiative was taken by the provincial cities and not 
by the central government, although the theory has been 
advanced that the assemblies were founded by the em- 
perors in some cases in order to hasten the Romanization 
of the province 1 . We might infer from the remark of 
Tacitus that the example of Spain was soon followed by 
other provinces, but there is no evidence which enables 
us to date the foundation of the other assemblies, nor can 
we determine whether they were created in all the pro- 
vinces of the empire. In the fourth century these organiza- 
tions were made obligatory by imperial mandate. 

Primarily, the provincial assemblies were charged with 
the annual services of the imperial cult, the care of the 
temple, and the celebration of games in honor of the deified 
emperor. However, when the delegates met to transact 
their official business, they discussed also matters of 
general interest, and the administration of the governor 
and his subordinates came under review for praise or 
blame. For the first time, therefore, the provincial cities 
had an official organization in which they could voice their 
opinion collectively in regard to the administration of 
their governor, and since his future career in public ser- 
vice might be largely determined by the action of the 
assembly, it was a powerful influence in securing better 
government in the province. In the case of dishonest and 
corrupt officials, the assembly under the empire took upon 
itself the duty of prosecuting the offender at Rome 
before the senate or the praetorian prefect. The earlier 
emperors doubtless encouraged this phase of the assembly's 
activity in order to keep a closer check on governors, 
especially in senatorial provinces. At any rate a large 
number of accusations were lodged in Rome against pro- 
vincial officials during the first century 2 . Later, when the 
imperial bureaucracy had developed more fully and 
agents of the emperor were sent out to the provinces and 
to individual municipalities, the number of prosecutions 

1 Krascheninnikoff, op. cit. \6%ff. 2 Guiraud, op. cit. 

[ 165 ] 


steadily diminished, and the influence of the assemblies 
was apparently weakened. 

The relation of the provincial assemblies to the munici- 
palities is obscure. Each municipality, or each tribal unit, 
sent a certain number of delegates to the assembly, and in 
Achaea it is possible that the smaller /coi^a were repre- 
sented in the provincial organization, either by delegates 
or, though less probably, in a body. The chief priest was 
elected annually by the assembly from candidates nomi- 
nated by the municipalities. He presided over the meetings 
of the assembly, and defrayed the expenses of the sacrifices 
and games as a form of liturgy 1 . In the ancient KOLVOV of 
Lycia the delegates were appointed according to a system 
of proportionate representation, the cities being graded 
in three classes, of which the first sent three delegates, 
the second two, and the third one each 2 . In the age of the 
Antonines the cities of Asia, and presumably those of the 
other provinces, were graded in a similar way for the 
distribution of the gift of immunity to teachers and 
physicians 3 . It is therefore possible that the Lycian 
system of representation was universally adopted in im- 
perial times, but there is no evidence on the subject beyond 
the fact that some cities sent more than one delegate, and 
that there were at least 1 50 members of the KOWW of 
Asia 4 . In Bithynia the members were sometimes appointed 
for life, although this distinction may have been purely 
honorary, as was true in the case of the life -appointment 
of the provincial priest, and of other liturgies which had 
been discharged with special merit 5 . 

In the proceedings of the assembly there is no evidence 
that mandatory instructions were given to its delegates by 
the civic government, but they were undoubtedly aware of 

1 Guiraud, op. cit. %2ff. 2 Strabo, 14. 3, p. 664. 3 Dig. 27. i. 6. 

4 Buckler and Robinson, AJA. 18 (1914), 356. In Aristides (p. 767 
Dind.) 407 votes are recorded as cast in a meeting of the assembly. 

5 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 7. Brandis, however, believes that the title does not 
refer to membership in the provincial assembly. 

[ 166 ] 


public opinion and were guided accordingly. In the in- 
scription from Thorigny it is recorded that the delegates 
gave up their attempt to attack Paulinus on the protest 
of Sollemnis 1 . Had they received a mandate from their 
respective cities, they would hardly have desisted on the 
protest of a single delegate from one state. Timarchus of 
Crete is said to have boasted that the power of granting 
an honorary decree to the retiring governor rested in his 
hands 2 . In later times the governor undoubtedly found 
means to control the election of deputies through the 
power which he exercised in municipal affairs, and this 
fact may account in part for the decreasing importance of 
the assembly in the second and third centuries in indicting 
provincial governors. 

Since the assemblies met but once a year, administrative 
matters of local interest were probably referred directly to 
the governor, or a delegation was sent to the emperor by 
individual cities who were eager to bring themselves to 
imperial notice. Occasionally, however, joint action was 
taken. Thus Asia honored T. Claudius Amphimachus for 
an embassy by which he undertook to secure a remission 
of the inheritance tax (et/cocrrr;) 3 . When Domitian forbade 
the cultivation of the vine in Asia, the provincial assembly 
sent Scopelianus to Rome, and he succeeded in having 
the decree revoked 4 . The same assembly asked Caracalla 
to fix Ephcsus as the port where the new governor should 
land in coming to his province 5 . While an advocate 
(ocSifcos) is mentioned in the case of the provincial 
assembly in Asia only 6 , it is probable that this official was 
attached to other assemblies as well, and, although his 
duties are nowhere defined, we may assume that he bore 
the same relation to the assembly as the municipal 

1 No. 140. 2 Tac. Ann. 15. 20. 

;l Cagnat, 1GRR. 4, 1236; Keil and Prcmerstein, Denkschriften der 
Wiener Akademie, 54 (191 1), no. q 3. 

4 Philostratus, Fit. Soph. \. 21. 12. 

5 Dig. i. 16. 4, 5. 6 AJA. 18 (1914), 350- 

[ 167 ] 


advocate to the city, and that one of his most important 
duties was in connection with the prosecution of provincial 

The only example of a provincial decree which was man- 
datory in the cities is found in Asia, where the assembly, at 
the request of the governor, adopted the Julian calendar 
throughout the province 1 . This business was apparently 
entrusted to the assembly because of the importance of 
the matter in connection with religious observances 
especially with those relating to the imperial cult. Titus 
wrote to the Achaeans, probably to the assembly, about 
the exposure of infants, although Domitian and Trajan 
communicated with the provincial governors on this sub- 
ject 2 . Antoninus wrote to the province of Asia forbidding 
the unrestricted grant of immunity from liturgies by the 
municipalities, and regulating the number of such grants 
which could be made in each city 3 . It is probable that 
this letter was addressed to the provincial assembly. It 
would seem that the assemblies had no administrative 
power over the cities of the province except in matters 
pertaining to the imperial cult, the games in honor of the 
emperor, and in cases where they received a mandate from 
the governor or emperor. The governor had the right of 
taking part in the regular proceedings of the assembly, 
and even in the case of honorary decrees could exercise 
the right of veto. The assembly could, however, appeal to 
Rome over the governor's veto, and in one case the 
emperor reversed the action of the governor, whereupon 
the decree became law 4 . 

The ancient KOLVOV of Thessaly had the privilege of 
granting citizenship and the right of owning property in 
any city of the federation 5 . Under Roman rule similar 

1 No. 34; Ditt. Or. Gr. 458; Keil and Premerstein, op. cit. no. 166. 

2 Pliny, Ep. ad Trai. 65. 3 Dig. 27. 1.6. 

4 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, chaps. 24, 26, 28. Whether the governor 
called together the provincial assembly may be doubted, cf. Ditt. Or. Gr. 
494, n. 6 IG. ix, 2, 507, 508. 

[ 1 68 ] 


privileges were apparently enjoyed by a few provincial 
assemblies. In Lycia officers of the assembly were some- 
times recorded as citizens of one or more towns, and the 
additional qualification is added TroXirevofiei/os 8e KOL eV 
rcus Kara Av/aW TroXecri Tracrcus, This phrase seems to 
imply that the official named exercised the rights of citizen- 
ship in all Lycian cities 1 . The citizenship in specified 
municipalities is contrasted with that in all the cities, and 
it may be possible that a form of honorary citizenship 
was conferred by the assembly. The KOLVOV of Asia con- 
ferred the title of 'Acreages on Isidorus, the son of Meno- 
genes, who was provincial advocate 2 . It is probable that 
this title implies a kind of honorary provincial citizenship. 
The tragic actor C. Julius Julianus was a citizen of 
Smyrna and enjoyed the rights of citizenship in all Hellas, 
Macedonia, and Thessaly (noXirevOel^ 8e iv 0X77 rrj 
'EXXaSt /ecu MatfeScWa /cat C*)ecr<TaXia). This claim 
may be an idle boast, but more probably his services at 
provincial festivals won him the grant of honorary citizen- 
ship 3 . 

The various municipalities which were members of the 
assembly contributed to the expenses of the organization, 
such as those required for the games, the religious cere- 
monies, buildings, repairs, maintenance of staff, embassies. 
They also met the charges in connection with the prosecu- 
tion of officials and the erection of statues 4 . There is a 
record of an endowment fund for the games in Asia, but 
the games were usually regarded as a liturgy pertaining 
to the priesthood. An African inscription dated A.D. 366 
shows that this liturgy had become so burdensome to the 
candidates that the governor intervened by reducing the 
scale of extravagance which had hitherto prevailed 5 . Not 

1 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 527, 539, 603, 628, 704, 739, chap. 5. In some 
cases, however, the phrase seems to imply the discharge of municipal 
liturgies, cf. Cagnat, op. cit. 563, 584, 680. 

2 AJA. 18 (1914), 3 2i/. 3 7G. v, i, 662. 

4 Guiraud, op. cit. 128 ff. 5 No. no; cf. Dessau, 1256. 

[ '69 ] 


infrequently the cost of buildings or of statues was de- 
frayed by the emperor; embassies were undertaken by 
private citizens at their own expense; and statues were 
often erected by the individual on whom the honor had 
been conferred. 

If we except the ' ' Altar " series of Lugudunum issued by 
the authority of the emperor, western assemblies possessed 
no right to coin money 1 . In the East silver coins were 
issued by towns and provinces, usually with imperial 
sanction and control. In Crete the provincial issue re- 
placed that of the individual towns 2 . Bronze or token 
money seems to have been issued by any organized city- 
community that chose to exercise the right, and the pro- 
vincial Koivd not infrequently issued communal bronze 
coinage 3 . There is no evidence that the provincial assembly 
exercised any control over the coinage of the cities. Since 
the imperial government probably determined the rate of 
exchange between the various currencies, it is probable 
that the revenue derived from the mint was slight, if any. 

Officials of the provincial assemblies sometimes held 
other positions. In Gaul the chief priest was appointed 
to some duty in connection with the census, and another 
official was patron of a guild of boatmen, but it would be 
unwise to infer from these examples that the assembly 
exercised any control over taxation or trade 4 . Opramoas, 
archiphylax of Lycia, made arrangements for securing 
order (eipjjvr)) and supplying provisions (evOrjvia) at an 
annual meeting of the assembly 5 . He also advanced money 
as a loan to those provincial cities which had been unable 
to make up their annual quota of imperial tribute. Rostow- 
zew thought that the assembly, through its officials, con- 
trolled the municipal irenarchs, sitonae, and decaproti, but 
this interpretation of the activities of Opramoas is hardly 

1 Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, i, 

2 Ibid, i, xxv ; R.E. s.v. KOIVOV. 3 Ibid, i, xxvii. 

4 Kornemann, op. cit. 815^. 5 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, chap. 5. 

[ 170 ] 


justified 1 . There must have been some cooperation between 
local and provincial officials at every meeting of the 
assembly, but it is unlikely that the local government 
surrendered its autonomy in any respect. The loan made 
by Opramoas to the cities was a political investment 
against the time when he should be a candidate for higher 
office in the assembly. Other Lycian inscriptions show 
that provincial officials sometimes contributed to the taxes, 
erection of public buildings, or cost of games 2 . These 
payments were not a regular liturgy attached to their 
post in the assembly, but were undoubtedly voluntary 
obligations undertaken from the same motive which in- 
fluenced Opramoas. It is also recorded that the chief 
priest of the Macedonian assembly paid the head tax for 
the province and provided grain at reduced prices during 
a famine which occurred in his year of office 3 . The 
assumption of these voluntary obligations was a dangerous 
precedent, which might easily have developed into a 
regular liturgy attached to officials in the provincial 
assemblies, especially if the pressure for the payment of 
imperial taxes had become severe at the time the gifts were 

Apart from the prosecution of government officials, the 
provincial assemblies seldom, if ever, took the initiative 
in political matters. One doubtful instance may be men- 
tioned here. In A.D. 70 the Treveri sided with Sabinus in 
his revolution. The Remi summoned a provincial con- 
cilium which asked the Treveri to lay down their arms 4 . 
The appeal was not heeded and the assembly whether 
regularly constituted or not, it is difficult to determine 
had no power to enforce its request. 

When the city of Sidyma established a gerusia^ the 
governor of the province was notified of the fact by the 
Lyciarch. The latter, however, was a citizen of Sidyma 

1 Rostowzevv, Gesch. d. Staatspacht, 418^". 

2 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 704; 739, p. 298. 

'- AcXr. 1916, 148. 4 Tac. Hist. 4. 67, 

[ '7* ] 


and it is probable that he acted in his private capacity as 
a resident of the city, rather than as an official of the pro- 
vincial assembly 1 . 

The assemblies frequently appealed to Rome for 
decisions on points of law and procedure, as we may infer 
from the frequent communications of the emperors to the 
provincials recorded in the Digest and Codes 2 . Only in 
Lycia, however, do we find any evidence of a provincial 
court under the control of the assembly 3 . The records of 
the KOIVOV of this province refer to specially summoned 
courts which were apparently under the control of the 
assembly. Unfortunately we have no other information 
which would help us to determine the relation of these 
courts to those of the Romans or of the municipalities. 
It is probable that they were constituted by the KOIVOV to 
settle disputes between municipalities which preferred the 
native to the Roman law, or they may have been called 
together to decide violations of the law in connection with 
the annual games and ceremonies of the assembly. Opra- 
moas, as archiphylax of Lycia, was entrusted with judicial 
power by the governor, although it is doubtful whether 
he received his commission as an official of the assembly 
or as a citizen of Rhodiapolis, and we cannot determine 
whether he had any connection with the special court of 
the assembly 4 . One of the officials of the Lycian KOIVOV 
was called the recorder (i/o/xoypa^evs), and the title 
implies that laws were enacted by the assembly 5 . The 
KOIVOV of Thessaly was asked by the governor to act as 
arbiter in a boundary dispute between Cierium and 
Metropolis 6 , The decision was rendered by a secret vote 
probably because of the necessity of preserving harmony 

1 No. 114. Note that the ratification of this act by the provincial governor 
seems to be required. 

2 Kornemann, op. cit. $20 f. 

3 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 563, 680, 736, 739, chap. 12. These may refer to 
settlements of disputes between members of the concilium ; cf. no. 46. 

4 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, chap. 12. 

5 Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 680. 6 No. 46. 

[ 17* ] 


within the assembly. It would be interesting to know 
whether the cities concerned took part as advocates as well 
as judges. 

The growth of Christianity and the abolition of the 
imperial cult turned the provincial assemblies into purely 
secular organizations in the fourth century. Their prestige 
had already been lowered by the redistribution of the 
provinces of Diocletian, and the creation of diocesan 
assemblies must have affected the smaller provincial 
organizations materially 1 . In the late empire our chief 
evidence for the history of the assemblies comes from the 
Theodosian Code. The rescripts which this Code contains, 
addressed directly to concilia, deal with points of law, the 
right of appeal, and the immunity of provincial priests 
and civic magistrates from certain liturgies. Other re- 
scripts addressed to provincials are usually interpreted as 
directed to the assemblies 2 . If this is the case, the concilia 
discussed taxation, the regulation of curiales, the public 
post, extortion by imperial officials, and similar matters. 
In all these cases the assembly had no powers beyond that 
of bringing the questions to the notice of the emperor in 
appeals or complaints against the injustice and corruption 
of imperial agents in the province. Various rescripts 
addressed by the emperor to the praetorian prefect safe- 
guard the right of assembly in ordinary and special 
meetings, as well as the freedom of discussion and appeal 3 . 
In all of these there is an implication that these privileges 
were often disregarded, and that the provincial assembly, 
where it existed, was brought under the control of 
governors to serve their personal interests. Ammianus 
tells us that Iphicles brought to the praetorian prefect the 
honorary decree conferred upon the governor by the 
Epirotes. On seeing the emperor afterwards and being 
questioned as to the sincerity of this expression of praise, 
Iphicles replied that his fellow-citizens passed the decree 

1 Guiraud, op. cit. 228 ff. 2 Kornemann, op. cit. 825^. 

3 Cod. Th. 12. 12. i (355), 12 (392). 

[ 173 ] 


with groans and in spite of themselves 1 . Some of the em- 
perors made an honest attempt to re-establish the councils 
on their former independent basis as a means of checking 
the corruption of provincial officials, but the forces of 
venality and extortion combined with bureaucracy to 
nullify their efforts. When the Justinian Code was com- 
piled, the assemblies had ceased to exist as a political force, 
and their organization survived only in the institutions of 
the Christian church. 

It has been said that the provincial assemblies con- 
tained the germ of representative government. It is true 
that they were representative, and elected organizations, 
but they never acquired any legislative, administrative, or 
judicial power, save in the rare cases when they acted on 
the direct authority of the emperor or governor in pro- 
mulgating their edicts or publishing their decisions. The 
assemblies commanded no armies, and had control of no 
revenues beyond the contributions made by the munici- 
palities for minor expenses and the funds from minor 
endowments. The money expended in the imperial 
worship and games was provided by the generosity of the 
officials appointed to the several liturgies. The primary 
function of the assemblies was religious, and through the 
grandeur of their display they undoubtedly acquired con- 
siderable prestige. In their secondary capacity as a board 
of review of the governor's policies, they were, we believe, 
encouraged by the emperors who desired to keep a close 
check on provincial administration, especially in the 
senatorial provinces. Most of the accusations lodged 
against corrupt officials came from provinces governed by 
the senate, and it must have been especially galling for this 
body to try its own agents. When the provinces all came 
under imperial control, the activities of the assemblies 
ceased. At least the records of impeachments disappear. 
In the late empire the imperial government sought to 

1 Ammianus, 30. 5. 8. 

[ 174 ] 


revive this function of the assemblies, but we have already 
seen that the attempt failed. 

The assemblies were seriously handicapped by meeting, 
usually, but once a year, and with a membership which 
was constantly changing, no continuous political traditions 
could be established. The appointment of the curator as 
an imperial agent, and the closer supervision of municipal 
affairs by the governors were important elements in check- 
ing the development of the provincial organizations. 
Moreover, the ingrained individualism of ancient states 
persisted long after they became municipalities of the 
empire and prevented concerted action for a common 
cause. Most of these cities, through their inordinate 
vanity, preferred to bring their difficulties directly to 
Rome by means of expensive embassies which might 
commend them to imperial notice. As a result of this 
practice, bureaus were created to deal with all phases of 
municipal administration, and in the development of 
imperial bureaucracy we have perhaps the most potent 
factor in preventing the political growth of the concilia^ 
for legislative, administrative, and judicial powers were 
gradually concentrated in the hands of the palace officials. 
For these reasons we believe that it is not altogether 
accidental that scarcely any records of the assemblies are 
preserved in the third century, and while the emperors 
sought to revive the assemblies in the fourth century in 
order to correct abuses in provincial government, they 
were powerless against the forces of the corrupt bureau- 

Although this sketch of the provincial assemblies in 
their relation to municipal institutions shows that the 
assemblies were relatively unimportant politically, we 
must not disregard them as wholly negligible. It is possible 
that the Councils of the early Church based their organiza- 
tion on that of the provincial assemblies, for the bishops 
were virtually the delegates of their municipal dioceses, 
and although the Councils were not always provincial in 

c 175 j 


scope, the representative principle may well have been 
borrowed from this pagan source. The modern parlia- 
ment also resembles the provincial assembly in form, but 
it would be unsafe to trace its development in a direct line 
through the medium of the Church Councils, although 
the latter may have transmitted the representative idea 
to the modern world. But the provincial assemblies served 
a more immediate purpose. They bound the whole empire 
together in a common cult, and, in the universal worship 
of Rome and the emperors, the subject states acknow- 
ledged the temporal and spiritual sovereignty of Rome. 
One may question whether the annual provincial rites, 
though celebrated with great pomp and splendor, were 
really as important, politically, as the local municipal 
cults, for only a small proportion of the population could 
attend the annual ceremonies. But the assemblies served 
their most useful purpose in safeguarding the interests 
of the municipalities against the excesses of imperial 
officials, and, in the common bond of mutual protection, 
they contributed in no slight measure to the breaking up 
of the old individualistic spirit, especially in the Greek 
states, and, by uniting all the municipalities in a province 
in a common interest, they gave birth to the spirit of 
nationalism; and though the importance of the assemblies 
had greatly diminished before the empire disintegrated, 
and though the separatist movement did not always follow 
the lines of the provincial organization, nevertheless the 
development of nationalism may be traced in no small 
measure to the influence of the provincial assemblies. 

i 7 6 3 




UNTIL the middle of the fourth century Rome in- 
corporated the peoples of conquered territory in her 
own state or permitted them to unite with the 
various members of the Latin League 1 . The ancient con- 
ception of the city-state did not allow an unlimited 
extension of this policy, and the principle of founding 
Latin colonies was already formulated in 384 B.C. At the 
close of the war with the Latins in 338 B.C. Rome was 
for the first time faced with the problem of imperialism. 
In dealing with her former allies she was fortunately 
guided by the statesmanship of wise and generous leaders, 
who repudiated the oriental idea that the sovereign state 
was entitled to be supported at the expense of the subject 
peoples. Some of the Latin states, hereafter to be known 
as municipia, w r ere given full Roman citizenship, retaining 
their own territories and apparently also their own local 
governments. Others, the dictates sine suffragio, were not 
admitted to full citizenship, but enjoyed the privileges 
conferred thereby, except the right to vote or to hold 
office in Rome. These states, also, were left with complete 
jurisdiction over their local institutions. At the seaport 
of Antium a Roman colony was founded to which three 
hundred Roman citizens were assigned. The relation of 
the colonists to the native population is obscure, but 
ultimately the two groups were united politically and all 
enjoyed the privileges of Roman citizenship. Other 
Latin cities retained their former status and government, 
but as allied states (civitates foederahie) their treaties with 

1 Marquardt, St. Vcrx. i, 21 ff. 
AMA [ 177 ] i* 


Rome either tacitly or explicitly recognized her supremacy 1 . 
The Latin colonies, whether founded before or after 338, 
were bound to Rome in the same relationship which they 
had formerly had with the Latin League. In all cases 
Rome controlled their foreign relations, and in the event 
of war military contingents had to be furnished by every 
member of the federation to defend the common cause. 
By this system of graduated relationship and by binding 
the various states of Latium to herself individually, Rome 
was able to maintain her supremacy in the federation 
without difficulty and, as a result of her fair treatment, 
the various members remained uniformly loyal, and many 
non-Latin cities voluntarily sought treaties of alliance 
with the state whose power was so rapidly expanding on 
the banks of the Tiber. 

The treatment of her Latin allies presents in miniature 
Rome's policy towards the Italian cities and tribes in 
extending her dominion over the peninsula. Roman and 
Latin colonies were planted throughout Italy. By friendly 
negotiations or by war Rome brought every tribe and state 
from the Apennines to the Sicilian Straits within the sphere 
of her influence, and by the beginning of the first Punic 
war Italy formed a federation, under the hegemony of 
Rome, which was composed of Roman and Latin colonies, 
municipia^ civitates sine suffragio, and civitates foederatae. 
We hear also of organizations, such as praefecturae, fora^ 
and conciliabula, whose status was beneath that of the more 
fully developed civic communities. For the most part 
people living under the tribal form of government were 
encouraged to settle in municipalities, since the Roman 
senate preferred to deal with a more stable form of govern- 
ment than was usually found amongst the primitive 
mountain tribes of Italy. The policy of differentiating the 
status of the various members of the federation was prob- 
ably devised as a means of rewarding or punishing those 

1 Reid, Municipalities of the Roman Empire, 51 ff.\ Frank, Roman Im- 
perialism, 33jf. 

[ 178 ] 


communities which had entered the federation willingly 
or by compulsion, but it also served to prevent disloyal 
combinations amongst the various states against the supre- 
macy of Rome. 

Rome continued her policy of liberalism towards the 
members of her Italian federation until the close of the 
third century. The right of Roman citizenship was gene- 
rously granted to the more favored communities. Common 
service in the army spread the knowledge of the Roman 
language and institutions over Italy, and the colonial 
foundations helped the prefects and praetors in intro- 
ducing the principles of Roman law throughout the 

The second Punic war marks a turning-point in the 
policy of Rome towards the federation. This was due in 
part to the disintegration of political ideals as a result of 
the exhausting struggle, and partly to the influence of 
imperialistic principles acquired from her experiences in 
provincial government. Members of the federation who 
had joined Hannibal were punished with the utmost 
severity. In the century following the close of the war 
Rome began to regard the federated states as subjects. 
Roman citizenship was seldom granted to the Latin or 
Italian cities, and the Latins were no longer invited to 
share in the colonial foundations of Rome. In many 
ways the rights of the allies were violated. Fields which 
had been laid waste or abandoned during the war with 
Hannibal were apparently regarded as agcr publicus of 
Rome, and the allies were deprived of their jurisdiction 
over them. In 193 the courts were authorized to apply 
only Roman law to cases of usury 1 . In the Bacchanalian 
conspiracy (186 B.C.) the senate assumed criminal juris- 
diction over Romans, Latins, and allies, condemning all 
classes with fine impartiality 2 . Other infringements of 
local rights by Roman magistrates were cited by Gracchus 
in pleading the cause of the Italians. On the other hand, 
1 Livy, 35. 7. 2 Livy, 39. i^ff. Cf. Bruns, 36. 

[ 179 ] 


Roman law was being adopted more and more throughout 
Italy, and many cities had the privilege of incorporating in 
their statutes the laws of the Roman senate or assemblies. 
Rome does not appear to have exerted any influence on the 
constitutional forms of the allied states, but allowed them 
to preserve their traditional institutions unchanged. It 
is possible that Roman commissioners or officials devised 
charters for some of the cities, but in most cases the 
changes were made at the request of the municipality 
itself and were not imposed by Rome. A case in point is 
the charter devised for Puteoli by Sulla. When colonies 
were founded, a commission was appointed to draw up 
their laws. These charters were not necessarily uniform, 
and doubtless varied in different localities and in different 
periods, but, in general, the commissioners must have 
followed the models framed by their predecessors. 

The Social war brought the gift of Roman citizenship 
to all Italians, but it is probable that no immediate changes 
were made in the forms of municipal government, since 
the troubled times which followed were not suitable for 
the settlement of constitutional problems. During the 
revolutionary period the Italian cities suffered from the 
tyrannical acts of both senatorial and popular factions. 
Sulla and his successors freely confiscated the territory of 
cities unfriendly to their cause, and colonies of veterans 
were often settled on these lands, where they enjoyed a 
quasi-municipal organization of their own, independent 
of the local government. Such a situation was intolerable, 
and could only be remedied by the fusion of the two classes 
of citizens. In the cities where the two groups combined, 
some changes would have to be made in constitutional 
forms. Probably the lex lulia municipalis was devised to 
bring some uniformity out of the chaos which had deve- 
loped in Italy when Italian towns were transformed into 
Roman municipalities, and in the confusion incident to 
the civil wars. The Julian law marks the first attempt at 
uniformity in civic government. The law, however, was 


limited in scope, and affected only certain details of ad- 
ministration, such as the election and qualifications of 
officials and decurions and the administration of law. In 
other respects the municipalities preserved their tradi- 
tional forms and customs, although it is probable that the 
tendency to ape Roman institutions had long been active 1 , 
and that, in the course of time, the cities conformed more 
and more to a uniform pattern. 

Rome acquired her first province at the close of the 
first Punic war, and in Sicily she came into contact with 
the oriental conception of imperialism, according to 
which the conquered races paid tribute to the conqueror. 
Three cities in Sicily were admitted as allies of Rome 
and five were given the status of civitates liberae. The 
latter were regarded as independent communities, but 
their right to conduct negotiations with other states was 
circumscribed, and in actual practice they probably 
differed but little from the federated states of Italy. The 
territory of certain cities which had shown bitter hostility 
to Rome was confiscated and became ager publicus of 
Rome. These cities were called civitates censoriae, because 
the leasing of their land was under the control of the Roman 
censor. The remainder of Sicily was divided among the 
civitates stipendiariae, which paid an annual tithe of their 
produce to the sovereign state 2 . In organizing the pro- 
vince a commission was sent out to draw up a lex pro- 
vinciae, which determined the rights and privileges of the 
various cities in the district. It is uncertain how far the 
constitutions of the various cities were modified by this 
law, but it is probable that traditional forms were pre- 
served as far as possible, while the control of the municipal 
government was placed in the hands of an oligarchy 
friendly to the conquerors. No attempt was made to 

1 For the muni dpi a fundana which had the right in republican times to 
copy Roman statutes, cf. Elmore, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. 47 (1916), 35^. 

2 Q/- pp. 47 ' ff. On the various theories concerning the lex Iulia y cf. 
no. 24. 

C 181 ] 


provide uniform charters for the provincial cities, although 
the system of collecting the tribute and of administering 
the law may have tended to standardize the legal and 
financial administration in the towns within the bounds 
of each province. 

In adding new provinces to their dominion the Romans 
were guided in some measure by the results of their ex- 
perience in dealing with older acquisitions. In general the 
principle of exacting tribute was followed. We also find 
that some cities were given more liberal privileges than 
others, probably with the idea of lessening the danger of 
disloyal combinations in alien lands. In Africa and in the 
eastern provinces which were thoroughly Hellenized, the 
Romans found the municipal system generally established, 
and no changes were made in it, except to modify the 
government of the more democratic cities by strengthen- 
ing the oligarchy. It is probable that most of the Greek 
cities had already become timocratic under the rule of the 
Macedonian and Seleucid princes 1 . Wherever the civic 
commonwealths had not fully developed, the Romans set 
themselves the task of organizing them as soon as possible. 
New cities were founded or the territory of older ones was 
extended. In some cases the territorium assigned to cities 
was very extensive, and as the villages developed in im- 
portance, new cities were created within the territory of 
the old. No uniform laws were prescribed for the new 
foundations so far as we can discover, although Bithynian 
cities were given senates formed on western models, and 
the charters of other cities, established by later governors, 
probably followed similar lines. Great flexibility was per- 
mitted, since the political development of the inhabitants 
and other local conditions were undoubtedly taken into 

While little effort was made to secure uniformity in 

municipal government, the legislation of the Gracchi took 

an important, if ill-advised, step in this direction when 

1 Cf. no. 9; Colin, Rome et la Grece, 



provision was made that the contracts for the collection 
of the tribute from Asia should be let in the city of Rome. 
By this law tax-gathering became the special prerogative 
of the equites. They and their agents were absolutely 
unscrupulous in carrying out their contracts. In raising 
the quota from each city they held the magistrates and 
senators responsible for all deficiencies, as well as for loans 
contracted by the city to meet the obligations to the state. 
This is well illustrated by the story of the agents of Brutus, 
who enforced the payment of a loan by shutting up the 
senators of Cypriote Salamis in the town hall until some 
of them perished from starvation 1 . The theory of collective 
liability was probably borrowed from the practice of the 
old Hellenistic bureaucracy, or it may have developed 
from the Sicilian custom, where the municipalities often 
availed themselves of the privilege of farming their own 
quota of taxes in order to save collectors' profits. The 
Gracchan legislation applied, in the first instance, to Asia, 
but the system was soon extended to other provinces. 
Under these conditions cities suffering from the burden 
of taxation would insensibly abandon their more demo- 
cratic institutions by choosing their official class from the 
wealthier members of the community a tendency which 
was, no doubt, fostered by the Romans, whose chief in- 
terest was the collection of revenue. 

In the administration of law the rights of individual 
cities were usually defined by the lex provinciae. The cities 
were usually permitted to use their own laws, at all events 
in certain cases, and the republican senate brought no 
pressure upon them to adopt the laws of Rome. The 
governor, however, had large judicial powers, and in 
issuing his edict he not only followed the provisions of the 
lex provinciae^ but also copied extensively from the 
praetor's edict 2 . In his circuit, therefore, the principles 
of Roman law were made familiar to the various cities, 
and just as their law influenced the development of Roman 
1 Cicero, ad Alt. 6. ^. 2 Cicero, ad fam. 3. 8. 4; ad Att. 6. I. 15. 

[ 183 ] 


jurisprudence, so it is probable that many cities, in turn, 
adopted the better features of Roman law 1 . 

The colonial policy of the Romans was at first dictated 
by military requirements, although it served the secondary 
purpose of providing lands for the indigent populace 2 . 
Colonial foundations of the Latin type ceased after 
1 8 1 B.C., and Rome thereafter shared none of the privi- 
leges of the new settlements with her Latin allies. In 
172 B.C., however, Carteia in Spain was given Latin rights 
by the comitia. An important precedent was thus estab- 
lished by which the provincial lands could be recognized 
as Italian soil. The foundation of transmarine colonies was 
not popular at Rome, and Gracchus met with bitter 
opposition when he attempted to carry his proposal to 
found a Roman colony on the site of Carthage. After his 
death the portion of the Rubrian law providing for the 
settlement of Carthage was repealed. The motives which 
led the senate to reverse its policy by the foundation of 
Narbo Martius in 1 1 8 B.C. cannot be determined. There- 
after the senatorial party was opposed to colonial founda- 
tions beyond the bounds of Italy and bitterly fought the 
proposals of those democrats who sought to establish 
colonies in various provinces, and who succeeded in con- 
ferring Latin rights on the trans-Padane cities of Northern 
Italy. Marius initiated the policy of settling his soldiers 
in colonies of veterans, and later military leaders followed 
his example. Sulla and Caesar established their veterans, 
for the most part, on Italian farms confiscated from those 
opposed to them in the wars. Augustus and later emperors 
purchased lands for the purpose. 

Caesar was the first Roman statesman to comprehend 
fully the fact that the safety of Rome as the capital of the 
empire could be secured only by fair and equitable 
government of the provinces, which now constituted the 
real source of imperial revenue and power. He and his 

1 Mommsen, Romisches Strafreckt, n^ff. 

2 Abbott, Class. PhiL 10 (1915), 365^. 

[ 184 ] 


successors devoted their best efforts to administrative 
problems, and they eliminated most of the abuses which 
had grown up during republican times. The equestrian 
order was deprived of its privilege of farming the pro- 
vincial taxes, and in placing the collection of the imperial 
revenues as a charge upon the municipalities themselves, 
the emperors returned to a policy of decentralization. The 
convenience of this system led to important results in the 
extension of the municipal organization. Where a district 
was not sufficiently advanced for self-governing municipal 
institutions, various devices were adopted. For example, 
client princes were placed over certain kingdoms in Asia; 
Egypt was governed through a prefect; Cappadocia was 
divided into crrpar^yiai; in Thrace we find toparchies; 
and in Illyria regiones were established 1 . In all parts of the 
empire, however, the rulers fostered the development of 
municipal life, and by the beginning of the fourth century 
the whole empire might be considered as a group of 
administrative units made up of municipalities and im- 
perial estates. Caesar also set an imperial precedent for 
the practice of regarding the provinces as Roman soil by 
founding transmarine colonies of Roman citizens, and he 
thus prepared the way for the grant of citizenship to 
provincial cities. The lex lulia municipalis played an im- 
portant role in developing the idea that municipal institu- 
tions in a particular district or province should be regulated 
by uniform laws; the reorganization of Gaul by Augustus, 
and of Spain by Vespasian was undoubtedly governed by 
this principle. 

In the first century of the empire the municipalities 
were left with a great amount of freedom and independ- 
ence. Universal peace brought general prosperity. The 
borders of the empire were for the most part undisturbed, 
and there were no costly wars to lay any undue burden 

1 For the organization of the provinces, cf. Marquardt, op. cit. i, 
Kuhn, Die stadt. u. burger/. Verfassungd. rom. Reichs, 2, 41^.; Mommsen, 
Roman Province s^ passim. 

[ 185 ] 


upon the imperial treasury. Until the principate was 
secure, provincial governors were under close scrutiny, 
since the danger to the succession lay in that quarter. As 
a result there was a tendency to encourage the independ- 
ence of the municipalities in their relations to the governor. 
This may be seen in the revival and extension of the pro- 
vincial assemblies which served as an important check on 
the governors, especially in the senatorial provinces, and 
in the encouragement afforded to embassies which came 
from the provincial cities direct to Rome. The emperor 
was universally regarded as the great benefactor who had 
released the provinces from the iniquities of senatorial 
government and from the miseries which had befallen 
them in the last century of the republic. The worship of 
the imperial godhead, established in every province and 
in every city, was not inspired by senseless flattery, but 
by a real sense of obligation. To the emperor, accordingly, 
the cities were eager to appeal on every conceivable 
question which affected their interests, although many 
embassies, from a desire to bring themselves to the im- 
perial notice, were inspired by motives of vanity. It was 
inevitable that bureaus should be created to handle the great 
variety of business which was referred to Rome, Thus the 
paternal benevolence of the central administration and the 
servility of the local oligarchies reacted constantly on each 
other, until the central bureaus absorbed local legislative 
and administrative functions, while the municipal govern- 
ments gradually lost their political initiative and power. 

Under the imperial administration the decline of 
democracy in the provincial cities continued. In the West 
the popular assembly had never been important. The 
people expressed their will largely through their power 
of election, and this privilege seems to have been trans- 
ferred to the senate before the beginning of the third 
century except in the case of a few cities in Africa 1 . The 
local senate was the chief organ of administration ; and 
1 Cod. TL 12. 5. i (326). 

[ 186 ] 


since its members held office for life, they controlled the 
annual magistrates as thoroughly as the Roman senate 
had once controlled the consuls. In the East democratic 
forms were cherished as a heritage of the past, but it is 
doubtful if the popular assemblies had exerted any real 
influence on the local administration even during the last 
century of the republic 1 . The loss of political instincts in 
the mass of the population was fatal to the best interests 
of municipal government. During the first century of the 
Christian era the administration came more and more 
under the control of vested interests which were no longer 
held in restraint by the scrutiny of a popular assembly. 
In spite of the outward brilliance of municipal life at this 
period and the intense rivalry of cities in building public 
works and in celebrating magnificent games and spec- 
tacles, it is undoubtedly true that corruption and mis- 
government flourished. The eagerness with which wealthy 
citizens sought high office and undertook expensive 
liturgies was not always due to patriotic motives and to 
civic pride, but was more often inspired by a desire to 
enrich themselves at the expense of the municipality. 
Cicero had observed this tendency in Cilicia 2 , and Ger- 
manicus was called upon to correct the abuses of local 
magistrates in the East 3 . Tacitus records the incident of 
Atilius of Fidena, who gave a gladiatorial show from 
motives of sordid gain, when, by the collapse of the flimsy 
stands which he erected, fifty thousand people were 
killed or injured 4 . Had we the full records of municipal 
history from the standpoint of the common people, we 
should undoubtedly find that many a record of brilliant 
service carved on enduring marble was amply repaid by 
the emoluments of office. Proof of this statement is not 
absolutely lacking, for the appointment of imperial agents 

1 Cf. pp. 69^*. The Athenian assembly exercised important powers in 
the reign of Hadrian; cf. no. 90, Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. J'Asic, 205^. 

2 Cicero, ad Alt. 5. 16. 62. 3 Tac. Ann. 2. 54. 
4 Tac. Ann. 4. 62. 

[ '87 ] 


and commissioners was not unknown in the first century; 
moreover, early in the second century, the curator rei 
publicae was created as a regular official for managing 
those communities whose internal affairs had become 
so entangled that the local authorities were incapable of 
solving their problems 1 . 

In the first two centuries of the Christian era the great 
achievement of the empire was the Romanization of the 
West. The early emperors may have dreamed of accom- 
plishing the same task in the East, but the forces of Greek 
tradition were too strong to be successfully overcome. 
The extension of the municipal system in the western 
provinces was an important factor in this movement, and, 
as the native population was for the most part unhampered 
by any cultural traditions, greater uniformity was attain- 
able in the West than was possible in those provinces 
where Rome came into contact with older civilizations. 
For the empire as a whole uniformity was impossible; the 
effective obstacles were the fundamental differences be- 
tween East and West, the division of administration 
between the senate and the emperor, and the inequalities 
of status in the various provincial cities, which continued 
from republican to imperial times. While few new colonies 
were founded after the age of Hadrian, the honorary title 
colonia was often conferred upon older cities, although the 
honor did not, necessarily, involve any change in con- 
stitutional forms 2 . Roman citizenship, however, was con- 
ferred with great liberality upon individuals and entire 
communities. Similarly, the ins Italicum and ius Latii 
were freely granted to provincial cities 3 . Since provinces 
were composed of federated, free, and stipendiary com- 
munities, and of Roman, Latin, and provincial citizens, 
uniformity in legislation was difficult. However, the 
knowledge and use of Roman law, as it was extended over 
the Roman world, carried the idea of universal legislation. 

1 Cf. pp. 90^.; no. 65 a. 2 Cf. pp. 

3 R.E. s.v. ius Italicum^ ius Latii. 

[ 188 ] 


The regulations in regard to the fiscus and the imperial 
liturgies were undoubtedly universal in their application. 
In the course of time it is probable that the imperial 
regulations were adopted by the municipalities to apply 
to purely local liturgies. Furthermore, the imperial will 
was supreme in every province, and while it is evident 
that the earlier emperors legislated for each city indivi- 
dually, yet it is probable that the tendency to frame 
universal regulations for all parts of the empire steadily 
developed. An edict of Augustus, lowering the age limit 
of municipal magistrates, and one of Trajan, forbidding 
the formation of clubs, were effective in the senatorial 
province of Bithynia 1 . Finally, the development of bureau- 
cracy implies that the details of administration passed 
more and more into the hands of the civil service, and it 
was inevitable that uniform laws should become the 
prevailing practice in these departments. 

The appointment of the curator ret publicae^ to whose 
office we have already referred, shows the trend of pater- 
nalistic legislation under Trajan 2 . The evidence implies 
that the office soon became widespread, and if this was the 
case, inefficiency and corruption in the local municipal 
administration must have been general. As the personal 
representative of the emperor, the curator played an im- 
portant part in undermining the power of the local 
authorities, and in later times he seems to have supplanted 
them in many cities. The office became so important that 
Ulpian devoted a special treatise to its duties. The corre- 
spondence between Trajan and Pliny shows the attitude 
of a benevolent and painstakingly conscientious emperor, 
and reveals the unhappy state into which the cities ol 
Bithynia had fallen, when, for example, one of them could 
not decide on its own initiative whether a sewer should be 
covered. Hadrian devoted particular attention to the 
problems of municipal government in his travels. He 
also reorganized the civil service and placed it upon a more 
1 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 34, 79, 92, 93, 96; cf. 65. * Cf. pp. 


efficient basis. To him, also, is probably to be ascribed 
the codification of the provincial edict. By this act the 
administration of justice by the governor was placed on 
a uniform basis in the provincial courts. 

During the first two centuries of the Christian era the 
imperial policy in respect to municipal government, in so 
far as a policy can be discovered, was consistent and 
uniform. In the third century the attitude of the central 
government towards the provinces changed. The new 
policy was due, in part, to the character of the govern- 
ment. The senate was now reduced to a very minor part 
in the administration, and all the provinces were under 
the control of the emperor. The army was all-powerful. 
The emperors, who were usually chosen by it, were not 
selected from the Roman nobility, but were successful 
or popular military leaders, unfamiliar with Roman 
traditions and unacquainted with the problems of civil 
administration. The government thus became a military 
autocracy, whose chief concern was the collection of 
sufficient revenue to secure the loyalty of the legions, and 
this consideration determined its attitude in framing the 
imperial policy towards the municipalities in the third 
century and the later empire. 

Professor Rostovtseff has recently advocated the theory 
that the imperial policy of the third century was dictated 
by the hostility which existed between the army and the 
cities 1 . He believes that, since the legions were made up 
of conscripts drawn from the villages, where they had 
been exploited by the civic authorities, the peasant soldiers 
forced the emperors, chosen by them, to avenge past in- 
juries by oppressing the cities. The military autocracy 
sought to bring about a levelling, politically, socially, and 
economically, of the wealthy governing class in the cities. 
Rostovtseff believes, somewhat inconsistently, that the 
emperors sought to strengthen the municipalities by 

1 Rostovtseff (formerly Rostowzew), Mus. Beige, 27 (1923), 233^. Cf. 
nos. 139, 192. 


creating a strong peasantry. Here, however, they only 
succeeded in intensifying the antagonism between town 
and country. The peasant began to be conscious of his 
power and looked to the emperor as his protector against 
the city. We have discussed this theory more fully else- 
where 1 . The chief objection to it is the fact that the 
majority of the complaints lodged by the villagers in the 
third century are directed against the soldiers and imperial 
officials who were supposed to protect them. 

Early in the third century the edict of Caracalla, ex- 
tending the Roman franchise to all provincials, is one of 
the most important acts of the imperial government in the 
history of Roman municipal legislation. The motive of 
the emperor in issuing this edict has been variously inter- 
preted. Cassius Dio, the only ancient historian who refers 
to it, states that the purpose was to collect more revenue 2 . 
This might have been done, however, by extending the 
inheritance tax, hitherto levied only on Romans, to all 
provincials 3 . Rostovtseff advances the theory that Cara- 
calla, being of non-Roman origin, took delight in reducing 
the Romans to the same level as the provincials 4 . From 
the standpoint of municipal history, we believe that the 
edict served a different purpose, and we venture the 
following interpretation. Heavy taxation and burdensome 
liturgies had already begun to press with great severity 
on the governing bodies of the municipalities, especially 
since the resources of the empire were dwindling and the 
cost of administration and defense was increasing. The 
necessary revenue could not be raised unless the municipal 
organization continued unimpaired. But, as we have 
pointed out in our discussion of liturgies, it was more and 
more difficult to find suitable candidates for public office 5 . 
Before adopting compulsory legislation, the government 
had resorted to various devices in order to secure eligible 
candidates for the local senate and magistracies, chief of 

1 No. 139. a Cf. no. 192. 3 Hirschfeld, 97. 

4 Cf. p. 190, n. i. 5 Cf. pp. 112 ff. 


which was the grant of Latium maius or minus, whereby 
members of the curia or magistrates, respectively, earned 
the right of Roman citizenship. For a time this legislation 
may have succeeded in inducing candidates to stand for 
office, but ultimately it defeated its purpose, since no one 
who became a Roman citizen could be required to hold 
office or to perform liturgies in any other city unless he 
chose to do so voluntarily 1 . Since those chosen for this 
honor were usually the wealthier citizens, and since the 
number of Romans steadily increased in each community, 
the local government became proportionately weaker. It 
is probable, therefore, that the edict of Caracalla was de- 
vised as a means of reviving the municipal administration 
in non-Roman communities. The conventus civium 
Romanorum disappeared, and all members of the com- 
munity were placed upon the same footing in regard to 
municipal obligations. In this way the collection of the 
imperial revenues was better secured. Furthermore, the 
edict must have swept away the inequalities in the status 
of provincial cities. It has been noted that the title civitas 
began to supplant municipium and colonia about this time, 
and the distinction between free, federated, and tributary 
states must have been largely eliminated, although it is 
probable that the privileges of some cities were renewed or 
confirmed by special grant. For example, the ius Italicum 
was cherished by a few cities until later times, and Antino- 
opolis in Egypt seems to have retained the privileges 
granted by Hadrian as late as the end of the third century 2 . 
Unfortunately, the amelioration of conditions in the cities, 
which was accomplished by the edict, was more than 
nullified by the famines, plagues, civil wars, and the com- 
plete demoralization of economic life in the century which 
followed. Moreover, the wealthier class was still able to 
secure exemption from municipal obligations by obtaining 
the rank of imperial senator. 

1 Cf. p. 103, n. i. 

2 Wilcken, Chrestomathie, 397; cf. nos. 137, 170, 183, 184. 

[ 192 ] 


The social effects of the edict may be seen more clearly 
in the oriental cities. Here the administration had been 
controlled by a Greco-Roman oligarchy which was very 
much in the minority. When all citizens obtained Roman 
rights, the ruling aristocracy was submerged in a rising 
tide of orientalism, and as the central government became 
weaker, the spirit of nationalism began to manifest itself 
in various provinces. Native law, however, was supplanted 
by Roman jurisprudence much more rapidly under the 
new conditions, and it is probable that the municipal 
courts declined rapidly in the following century. More- 
over, since the status of all cities was now the same, and 
since the military emperors cared little for local traditions, 
a policy of uniform legislation for the whole empire 
developed more rapidly. It must not be understood from 
this that the internal constitutions of all cities were brought 
into conformity. The imperial government cared little 
for such details so long as tribute continued to be paid. 
There is, however, some evidence that local charters were 
overridden, as for example, in the law which required 
that magistrates should be elected from among the de- 
curions 1 . Ulpian defined the duties of the curator rei 
publicae in a special treatise, and Arcadius Charisius wrote 
a book on municipal munera. The Digest contains 
numerous extracts from the jurists dealing with municipal 
administration. Paulus, Ulpian, Hermogenianus, and 
others dealt with the office of governor, and his relations 
with the municipalities were closely defined. The power 
of veto, the right of making nominations for magistracies 
and liturgies, the oversight of public works, the formation 
of the album, the administration of justice, the enforce- 
ment of laws regarding honors and liturgies, and other 
details of municipal administration were vested in the 
governor or curator. 

1 The laws in regard to the privileges, responsibilities and status of de- 
curions seem to have been enacted before the time of Ulpian. Cf. Dig. 
50. 2 passim. 

AMA [ 193 ] I 3 


The preservation of the municipality as a medium for 
the collection of revenues offers the best explanation of the 
imperial policy of the third century. This was undoubtedly 
the reason why Severus extended the municipal system 
to Egypt in A.D. 202. The formation of local guilds of 
workmen in various trades was also dictated by a desire 
to create a new class that would be responsible for a portion 
of the liturgies which were pressing so heavily upon the 
municipalities. We cannot determine at what period the 
principle of origo was extended from the Orient to other 
parts of the empire. The emperors early recognized that 
a citizen's birthplace had priority in claiming his services 
for magistracies and liturgies 1 . According to a law 
recorded by Ulpian, the provincial governor had the 
power to compel decurions, who had left their native city, 
to return and fulfil their obligations in the curia 2 . This is 
the beginning of a long line of legislation dealing with the 
curialeS) the purport of which was to bind them to their 
birthplace and to reduce them to virtual serfdom. This 
development was slow, but it was accelerated by the legis- 
lation of Diocletian, who by separating the civil and 
military power in the provincial administration and by his 
subdivision of the empire and the provinces greatly in- 
creased the cost of administration. To meet the additional 
outlay a new system of taxation was devised which not 
only placed a heavier burden upon the subject peoples, 
but also forced them to exploit their lands to the point of 

The imperial policies of the fourth and fifth centuries 
do not differ from those of the third, except that the em- 
perors resorted to more desperate expedients in order to 
preserve the civic organization. The curiales and members 
of guilds were bound to their order and their place of 

1 This principle seems to be indicated in the lex provincial of Bithynia 
when Pompey forbade the cities to grant rights of citizenship to anyone who 
was already citizen of another town within the bounds of the province, 
Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 114. 2 Dig. 50. 2. i. 

[ 194 ] 


origin, and all citizens transmitted their rank and their 
profession in hereditary succession to their descendants. 
The misery of the civilian population was aggravated by 
the oppression of the bureaucracy, whose members ex- 
ploited the provincials in every conceivable way. The last 
great act of imperial charity was the creation of the office 
of defensorplebis, whose duty it was to protect the common 
people and to safeguard their interests. How far he 
succeeded it is impossible to say. In the later empire he 
seems to have joined with the wealthy proprietors in their 
work of spoliation. He also contributed to the weakening 
of the powers of the local municipal magistrates, especially 
in legal and in administrative functions 1 . 

We have traced elsewhere the results of Rome's failure 
to develop a sound social, political, and economic policy 
in municipal administration 2 . Her statesmen were usually 
opportunists, and few clearly defined policies which were 
steadily or consciously pursued can be discovered. The 
greatest achievement of Rome was the extension of the 
municipal system over the greater part of her empire, 
thereby preparing the way for the more rapid infiltration 
of the cultural ideas of the age. One of the gravest defects 
in her policy was the preservation of the particularism of 
the ancient city-state. Had the provincial councils been 
allowed to develop, they might have created an organiza- 
tion along modern lines where there would have been 
cooperation for the common good, and where a national 
consciousness might have arisen which would have united 
and strengthened the empire. As it was, each city was 
encouraged to preserve its individuality as an isolated unit. 
More fatal still was the elimination of the democracy as 
a factor in local government. Thus the mass of the people 
was deprived of the power of exercising its political 
instincts. An irresponsible oligarchy gained control of 
the municipal administration, and the way was opened for 
widespread corruption and inefficiency. Finally the central 
i Cf. pp. 9 2ff. * Cf. pp. 197^- 

[ 195 ] 13-* 


government was compelled to come to the rescue, but the 
statesmen of that age could discover no other remedy for 
the situation than by the creation of new bureaus and by 
the multiplication of officials. When the imperial power 
became a military autocracy, the city was regarded chiefly 
as a convenient agent for the collection of taxes to support 
the army and the bureaucracy, and thereafter the preserva- 
tion of this instrument was the motive of all legislation 
dealing with municipal institutions. 

r 196 



world," wrote Tertullian 1 , "is every day 
better known, better cultivated, and more civilized 
than before. Everywhere roads are traced, every 
district is known, every country opened to commerce. 
Smiling fields have invaded the forests; flocks and herds 
have routed the wild beasts; the very sands are sown; the 
rocks are broken up; the marshes drained. There are now 
as many cities as there were formerly cottages. Reefs and 
shoals have lost their terrors. Wherever there is a trace 
of life there are houses, human habitations, and well 
ordered governments/' While the rhetorical exaggeration 
of this panegyric of the Roman world under Aurelius may 
be readily discounted, and exceptions to the general 
happiness and content may be granted, the prosperity of 
the empire in the first and second centuries of its history 
is everywhere apparent. In the long era of peace trade 
and commerce developed unhindered, and agricultural 
or industrial communities were free from the wastage of 
foreign wars and internal strife. Municipal institutions 
spread far and wide until the empire became in great part 
an aggregate of city-states. In each of these the citizens 
displayed an intense pride in public welfare, and endowed 
their native town with splendid monuments, buildings, 
and gifts for special purposes, such as libraries and 
schools. Offices and honors were eagerly sought, and 
lavish contributions were made in attaining them. Public 
spirited citizens, civic pride, and keen urban rivalries 
combined to produce a brilliant municipal life throughout 
the empire. 

1 Tertullian, de anima^ 30 (Ferrero's translation). 

[ '97 ] 


In bitter contrast to the prosperity of the early days of 
the empire, the records of the fourth century present a far 
different picture. The citizens now sought every possible 
means of avoiding public service. Oppressed by heavy 
burdens of taxation and liturgies, they often preferred to 
abandon their property and take refuge in flight rather 
than discharge their obligations. Local senates no longer 
had members sufficient in numbers to preserve the muni- 
cipal organization, and many cities had degenerated into 
villages, or had been completely abandoned. The law codes 
are filled with references to deserted curiae and fugitive 
citizens 1 . Desperate remedies were applied to restore civic 
life, but so severe was their nature that the process of 
decline was aggravated. It is everywhere apparent that 
the ancient city-state had become bankrupt in its social, 
political, and economic life, and had passed into the hands 
of an imperial receivership administered by an autocratic 

The problem of the decay of municipal institutions has 
not received the same attention as the decline of the 
empire, but the factors which determined the fate of each 
were essentially the same, for the vitality of a nation 
depends on the strength of its component parts. Many 
theories have been set forth to account for the disintegra- 
tion of Roman power, of which none can be accepted as 
the sole explanation 2 . Many factors played a part, and the 
most difficult problem, after the lapse of centuries, is to 
determine their relative importance. In some cases purely 
local conditions, such as the shifting of trade-routes, or 

1 Cod. Th. 12. i. 6 (319), n (325), 13 (326), 22 (336), 24 (338), 25 
(33 8 )> 4 (353)> 43 (35-5)> 49 (361), 63 (370), et alia. 

2 There is a good summary and critique of theories advanced by earlier 
scholars in Am. Hist. Rev. 20 (1915), TUff. Cf. Declareuil, Quefyues 
probttmes d'histoire des institutions municipals au temps de r Empire romain; 
Hadley, Rome and the World Today, Heitland, The Roman Fate; Ferrero, 
The Ruin of Ancient Civilization; Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der 
antiken Welt\ Simkhovitch, "Rome's Fall Reconsidered, " one of the essays 
in Towards a Better Understanding of Jesus; Heitland, Iterum. 

[ 198 ] 


the exhaustion of mines, clay deposits, or forests, affected 
the prosperity of communities depending upon them. It 
is our purpose, however, to outline briefly the history 
of the political, social, and economic developments in 
municipal life under the empire, and to determine if 
possible what factors were universally operative in reducing 
municipal institutions to their unhappy plight in the 
fourth century. 

The most important problem of statecraft in the Roman 
Empire was the adjustment of the political relations be- 
tween the central government and the municipalities. The 
civic organization had been retained wherever the Romans 
found it existing, as a convenient unit of administration; 
and where the native population lived under a more 
primitive social organization, municipal government was 
introduced as soon as it was found practicable to do so. 
The cities already established in conquered territory were 
deprived of their military authority, and usually lost, or 
were seriously limited in, the power of conducting negotia- 
tions with other states. The privilege of using their own 
laws in their courts was highly prized by them, and the 
right was sometimes accorded, but in most cases the law 
was administered by the governor in accordance with the 
provisions of his own edict 1 . The Romans seldom con- 
cerned themselves with constitutional changes in subject 
cities, but since they preferred to deal with a stable 
oligarchy rather than with a fickle democracy, the popular 
assemblies gradually ceased to exercise any power, and 
the senate became the chief organ of municipal govern- 
ment 2 . Theoretically, each municipality was responsible for 
the administration of its own territory, but governors 
often found excuses, legitimate or otherwise, for inter- 
ference. The system of farming out the collection of 
taxes to publicani was especially fruitful in involving the 
cities in financial troubles; and in the regulation of these 
and other matters the decision of the governor was final. 
1 C/. pp.48/. 2 C/.pp. i86/. 

[ 199 ] 


With the establishment of the empire the position of 
the subject races improved immeasurably. The paternal- 
istic administration relieved the provincials from the 
countless exactions of the old regime, and the emperor was 
always willing to hear complaints and to remedy them. It 
is little wonder that the cities regarded the head of the 
state as an all-wise, all-powerful, and beneficent prince, 
and we may well believe that their decrees of adulation 
were thoroughly sincere. Partly from gratitude, partly 
from servility, they constantly referred their difficulties 
to the emperor, and the roads to Rome were thronged 
with embassies from senatorial and imperial provinces 
alike. This practice led to the creation of bureaucratic 
offices which, once inaugurated, tended to perpetuate 
themselves. Since a great number of problems were 
decided by the central administration, precedents and rules 
of procedure were established which were ultimately in- 
corporated in laws and applied to the whole empire 
without regard to local charters or privileges. The bureaus 
thus played an extremely important part in transferring the 
legislative functions of the municipal governments to 
Rome, and in clearly defining the relations of the pro- 
vincial governors to the cities by formulating universal 
laws in regard to the magistracies, the curator, the defensor, 
the decurions, the liturgies, and other details of civic life 1 . 

While the legislative functions of municipal govern- 
ments had largely passed* into the hands of the central 
authorities by the beginning of the third century, the 
usurpation of administrative powers was a matter of slow 
growth. The sporadic practice of sending out imperial 
commissions, vice-imperial prefects, and special agents 
(curatores) who controlled the expenditure of money from 
the imperial treasury, gave way to a more systematic 
control of municipal affairs under Trajan. In his reign 
many cities had become involved in serious difficulties 
either through mismanagement of their funds, or decline 

i Cf. pp. 8 4 /. 

[ 20O ] 


in their revenues, and special officers were appointed by 
the imperial government to examine and regulate methods 
of civic administration. There were two classes of these, 
the curator ret publicae(\oyi(TTri<;) and the legatus Augusti ad 
corrigendum statum liberarum civitatum, more commonly 
known as corrector (8iop0a)TTJ<; or liravopOwys). In a few 
instances in the East the titles were combined. 

The curator ret publicae^ was found in all parts of the 
empire, and apparently very few cities escaped his super- 
vision. Although he was elected in later times by the local 
senate, he probably retained the dignity of an imperial 
agent, outranking the other magistrates and gradually 
usurping their functions. As controller of the revenues 
and public lands, and possessing the right of veto, the 
curator played an important role in undermining the in- 
stitutions, and in paralyzing the political initiative and 
independence of the municipalities with which he came 
in contact. The corrector exercised functions somewhat 
similar to those of the curator, but his powers were greater 2 . 
This official was usually appointed in senatorial provinces, 
in free cities (liberae civitates), and in Italy and Sicily, and 
was a powerful factor in bringing those municipalities 
enjoying special privileges to the same footing as other 
towns in the empire. He also paved the way for the 
transfer of senatorial provinces to imperial jurisdiction. 

In the latter half of the fourth century the office of 
defensor civitatis (flebis) was created, primarily, to safeguard 
the interests of the common people 3 . While his duties were 
ill-defined at first, his high rank, long tenure of office, and 
the privilege of easy access to the governor or his superiors 
soon gave the defensor such prestige that the other muni- 
cipal authorities were completely overshadowed, and by 
the beginning of the fifth century he was the sole magis- 
trate in many towns. There is ample evidence that he 
sometimes allied himself with the land-holders and 

1 Liebenam, PhiloL 56 (1897), 290^*.; R.E. s.v. curator; cf. pp. 

2 R.E. s.v. corrector. 3 R.E. s.v. defcnsor; cf. pp. 


cruelly oppressed the people whom he was supposed to 
protect. The office thus fell into disrepute, and in the 
reorganization effected by Justinian it became a liturgy 
imposed upon the leading citizens in rotation. 

The provincial governor in the republican period was 
supreme in the territory over which he exercised jurisdic- 
tion. His powers were limited only by the lex provinciae, 
his own conscience, and the force of public opinion at 
Rome. Verres in Sicily and Cicero in Cilicia busied them- 
selves with the details of municipal administration, and the 
former had little regard for the interests or privileges of 
the cities under his authority 1 . In the early empire the 
rights of the towns were more jealously guarded, especially 
in senatorial provinces, and many cities, disregarding the 
governor, appealed directly to Rome. The correspondence 
of Pliny reveals how far he was restricted in initiative even 
in matters of trifling detail 2 . In the latter part of the second 
century the governor exercised more extensive powers. He 
had the privilege frequently exercised of taking part 
in the deliberations of the local senates, and of making 
nominations for magistracies and liturgies 3 . Since civilians 
were usually responsible as sureties for the candidates 
whom they nominated, the governor was called upon to 
exercise this duty more and more frequently as the burdens 
of office and public service became more oppressive 4 . If 
any candidate refused to hold office or to discharge a 
liturgy, the governor had the power to compel him to do 
so. Many other matters of municipal administration came 
under his jurisdiction, such as the formation of the alburn^ 
the construction of public works, the sending of embassies, 
and the enforcement of the laws regarding curiales and 
guilds 5 . In the reorganization of the empire effected by 
Diocletian, the limitation of the size of the provinces 

1 Cicero, in Verr. 2. 15, 22, 24, 25, 40; Cowles, Gains I'erres, 27 ff. 

2 Cf. pp. i49/- 3 Dig. 49- 4- i, 3> 4; '/ pp. 8j/., 98^*. 
4 Cf. pp. 97 1- 

6 Dig. i. 16. 18; 50.3. 1,2; 50.4.3,8,9; 50. 10.2,3, 55'/PP- I93./- 

[ 202 ] 


greatly increased the powers of the governor by enabling 
him to exercise a closer supervision of the municipalities 
within his district. 

While the growth of vast imperial and private estates 
checked the spread of municipal institutions, it is difficult 
to determine how far the presence of such estates in 
municipal territories limited the administrative powers of 
the local authorities. In the civil wars of the third century 
and in the late empire when the central government was 
powerless to check the oppressive exactions of the bureau- 
cratic officials or the ravages of lawless troops and local 
brigands, individual citizens, and sometimes entire 
villages, placed themselves under the protection of some 
wealthy landlord 1 . As a result their properties passed 
from municipal control, although the local senate was 
still liable for the taxes on such lands. The emperors 
sought in vain to check the growth of private patronage. 
The owners of the great estates were able to defy the tax- 
collectors; and since any deficiency in the quota of taxes 
assessed upon the municipality had to be made up by the 
curia/es, many of them were impoverished by the increase 
of latifundia, and the municipal organization was so 
seriously weakened that it ceased to fulfil its functions in 
many cities 2 . The same effect was produced by the de- 
velopment of great imperial estates which rapidly increased 
in all parts of the empire through bequests, fines, and 
confiscations 3 . Not only were these lands withdrawn as 
a source of municipal revenue, but tenants of the emperor 
were exempted from municipal charges. In 342 a law 
was passed by which curiales who leased less than twenty- 
five iugera were required to discharge their curial obliga- 
tions, but in view of the increasing difficulty of finding 

1 Zulucta, de patrociniis vicorum\ Libanius, de patrociniis^ 

2 Libanius, loc. cit.\ cf. no. 190. 

3 Mommsen, Strafrccht, ioo$jf ; Cod .J. 10. 38. i (396); nos. 90, 


suitable tenants, it is doubtful if the law was ever rigidly 
enforced 1 . 

The extant municipal charters show that the local 
magistrates had jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases 
within certain limits 2 . The lex pro vinciae probably defined 
the right of individual cities in the administration of 
justice. In cases where local jurisdiction was not per- 
mitted, the law was administered by the governor or by his 
agents delegated for the purpose 3 . The governor's edict, 
according to which he dispensed justice in his circuit, 
was based on that of the Roman praetor, and was instru- 
mental in spreading familiarity with Roman jurisprudence 
among the provincials. In Spain and Gaul the native 
law was primitive and had little importance under Roman 
rule. Under the republic the Greek cities clung jealously 
to their own legal system, and valued the right to use their 
own laws as an evidence of fancied autonomy. While the 
influence of Greek jurisprudence may be traced in the 
Byzantine age, the existence of local courts is rarely 
proved after the third century 4 . In the imperial period 
the Roman law and the Roman courts seem to have grown 
steadily in favor. Various causes may have influenced this 
development. The dominance of the state and of imperial 
legislation, the partiality and corruption of a local judiciary 
in an oligarchical government, the appointment of iuridici 
in Spain and Italy and of curatores reipublicae in provincial 
cities, the right of appeal, and the extension of Roman 
citizenship all tended to weaken the local courts and 
extend the use of Roman law. The reorganization of the 
provinces by Diocletian gave the civil governor (now 
usually styled iudex) greater opportunity to supervise the 
administration of justice. Legislation enabling the governor 
to decide cases summarily without the assistance of a 

1 Cod. Th. 12. r. 33 (342); no. 142. 

2 Nos. 27, 64, 65;r/. pp. 60 ff. 

3 Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d'Asic, 352 and note. 

4 133 and CIL. in, 412 for late examples of municipal courts. 

[ 204 ] 


bench of indices 1 , and to appoint judges (indices pedanei) 
for petty cases must have weakened the power of local 
magistrates very considerably 2 . The Codes of Theodosius 
and Justinian scarcely mention them in a judicial capacity 3 . 
In the fourth century the defensor plebis and the Christian 
bishops probably absorbed whatever judicial power still 
remained in the hands of the local magistrates. While 
resort to the ecclesiastical courts was purely voluntary, 
their simplified procedure and the moral weight of their 
decisions made them so popular that they attracted cases 
even from the courts presided over by the governor 4 . 

As the political institutions of the municipalities were 
decaying, the structure of their social life was being slowly 
transformed. The citizens might be divided into two great 
classes, those who were under obligation to discharge 
municipal liturgies, and those who were exempt from such 
burdens. The privilege of exemption was enjoyed by 
priests of the local and provincial cults, soldiers and 
veterans, members of the imperial bureaucracy, a limited 
number of physicians and teachers in each community, 
and, after the beginning of the fourth century, by officers 
of the Jewish and Christian churches. But the most 
important group was composed of those who held patents 
of imperial nobility, for in their hands was concentrated 
the wealth of the municipality. The passion for imperial 
honors almost became a mania amongst provincials, and 
the emperors bestowed the grant freely, either as a means 
of purchasing the loyalty of the provinces, or as a source 
of revenue, or as a reward for public service. The privileges 
of the senatorial order were hereditary, and in the fourth 
century, when municipal duties became a burden to 

1 Arnold, Roman Provincial Administration, 1 89. 

2 Cod. TV}, i. 16. 8 (362). The office of iudex as a municipal liturg> is 
referred to in Dig. 50.4. 18, 14. Cf. Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Folhrecht 
and Grundxugc zur Papyruskunde. 

CoJ. Th. 8. 5. i (31 5); 1 1. 31. 3 (368). 
4 Vmogradoff, Cam. MeJ. Hist, i, 

[ 205 ] 


citizens, the titles of nobility were illegally purchased or 
fraudulently assumed by wealthy families in order that 
they might escape their local obligations. This evil be- 
came so serious that the order of curiales was in danger 
of disappearing in many cities, and the emperors sought 
to remedy conditions by cancelling all honors illegally 
secured, and by raising the standard of requirements for 
future grants. In 390 the hereditary privileges were 
withdrawn, except in the case of the highest rank (illustres), 
and three years later it was decreed that the property of 
those receiving senatorial honors should remain subject 
to its former liturgies. Theodosius II finally closed the 
ranks of the nobility to those of curial origin. 

In the fourth century the curiales constituted the great 
middle class in the municipalities, and they were grouped 
by the laws into a distinct order composed of all citizens 
eligible for public office, or capable of discharging the 
liturgies imposed for the maintenance of civic and im- 
perial administration 1 . In consequence of their oppressive 
burdens members of this class attempted in every possible 
way to escape from their order, and the emperors were 
continually devising legislation to hold them to their 
obligations. Membership became hereditary, and no one 
could leave his native place except on pain of discharging 
the liturgies of his former as well as of his new home. He 
was even forbidden to take up his residence on his country 
estate to escape the liturgies of the city. No one of curial 
birth could enter the army, the clerical orders, the 
monastic life, the imperial service, the guilds, or the service 
of a wealthy proprietor as a steward or a colonus. The goal 
of imperial honors was only possible under conditions 
which were made increasingly difficult, and was finally 
denied to curiales altogether. Those who sought to enter 
any order or profession which carried the privilege of 
exemption from liturgies, were compelled to return to 
their former station. The emperors finally found a simple 

i Cf. pp. 1 12 jr. 

[ 206 ] 


remedy to prevent defection from the order by attaching 
the liturgies to the estate instead of to the individual. 
Property of curiales could not be sold without the consent 
of the governor or of the curia. The purchaser of such an 
estate assumed the civic liabilities attached to it. Bequests 
to non-members of the order were penalized by partial 
confiscation, and special legislation was devised in regard 
to the property of heiresses who married outside of their 
order or of their city. In spite of the laws, the curiales 
steadily diminished in number, although they were re- 
cruited in various ways. Sons of veterans who did not 
enter the army were regularly enrolled, although it is 
difficult to see what strength they could have given to the 
order. On occasion, plebeians and members of guilds 
who had acquired a certain amount of wealth were com- 
pelled to join 1 . Provincial governors even condemned 
criminals to the order as a punishment, although it is 
probable that such cases were limited to those of curial 
origin, or to those who were avoiding military service 2 . 

Members of guilds of various trades were granted 
partial immunity from liturgies in return for some specific 
duty which they undertook for the common weal 3 . Most 
of these guilds were in the imperial service, such as the 
alimentation of Rome, the mint, the mines, the factories 
for textiles and arms, and the like. A few were under the 
control of the municipal authorities and their members 
were required to act as firemen, to provide for public 
baths, to furnish entertainment in the theatres, or to dis- 
charge other duties. While we are fully informed about 
the imperial guilds, the Codes give little attention to the 
municipal corporations, but it is probable that the legisla- 
tion governing the former applied to the latter as well. 

1 The fullest treatment of the subject of guilds may be found in Walt- 
zing, Etudes historiques sur Us corporations professionnelles c/iez Us Romains\ 
cf. R.E. s.v. collegium-, Abbott, The Common People of Ancient Rome, 
20$ff.\ Declareuil, op. cit. 153^., 185/1 

2 Declareuil, op. cit. 192 /. 3 Cf. pp. 107 ff. 


In 337 Constantine granted complete exemption to a large 
number of trades in the municipalities, without specifying 
that they should be united in corporations for any special 
duty, but the evidence from inscriptions would lead us to 
believe that the guilds had become universal, at least 
throughout the western provinces, by that time. Early 
in the fifth century all citizens of towns were required 
to enroll themselves either in the order of curiales or in 
one of the guilds 1 . 

Under the early empire the service rendered to the state 
by the guild was not compulsory, and partly by grants of 
immunity, partly by pay, the government was willingly 
served. But in time the burdens became intolerable. 
Membership became hereditary, and the choice of a pro- 
fession was no longer a matter of personal preference but 
of birth 2 . Once enrolled in a guild, no member could 
escape, and he was confined for life to his profession 
and his place of origin 3 . One suspects that this legislation 
was devised in favor of vested interests as a means of con- 
trolling the supply of labor, but it is also possible that it 
was demanded by the guilds themselves to protect their 
own organization when the duties imposed upon them 
became so heavy that it was difficult to retain their mem- 
bership. Be that as it may, the most important source for 
recruiting new curiales was closed, and the development of 
trades and industries in new places was checked because 
the free movement of skilled labor ceased. 

The only class in the municipalities not affected by 
imperial legislation was the proletariat or ima plebs. The 
practice of Rome in maintaining this parasitic element 
by public charity was unfortunately widely copied, and 

1 Cod. Tk. 12. i. 179 (41 5). This law does not reappear in the Justinian 
code and may not have been long enforced. 

2 R.E. s.v. collegium. 

8 In 371 Valentinian ordered that navicularii should be perpetuo obnoxii 
functioni (Cod. Th. 13. 5. 14). Other guilds were soon brought under the 
same regulations (Declareuil, op. cit. 186). 



imposed a serious charge on the civic budget. Not only that, 
but the glamour of ancient urban life attracted labor from 
farms and other industries where a bare livelihood was 
gained by arduous toil. In the city one could be fed and 
amused at the expense of the state, and when the capitatio 
plebeia was removed from the residents of the towns, we 
cannot wonder that the urban movement went on apace. 

This survey of the social organization in the fourth 
century reveals the deplorable plight into which the 
citizens of the municipalities had fallen. While it is 
doubtless true that the heavy taxes and the oppressive 
liturgies contributed a great deal to the distress of the 
curiales and guilds, these burdens could have been borne 
if they had been imposed while the municipalities were 
enjoying uninterrupted prosperity. But it is clear that the 
favorable economic conditions which prevailed in the first 
century had given way to widespread and long continued 
depression. The population was decreasing in numbers, 
and the revenues of the towns as well as the wealth of the 
citizens were diminishing. There was grave danger that 
the municipal organization, which was still of the highest 
importance, especially as an instrument of tax-gathering, 
might disappear. This was the compelling reason which led 
the central government to interfere in municipal adminis- 
tration, to build up elaborate bureaucratic machinery, and 
to devise stringent legislation controlling the private life 
of the individual citizen. 

In studying the economic conditions of municipal life 
in the ancient world we must bear in mind that the in- 
dustrial city of the modern type was unknown. Labor 
costs were practically uniform throughout the empire, 
and inland towns could not build up a foreign trade 
because of the difficulties and costs of transportation. Only 
in cases where there was a monopoly of some natural 
product, such as papyrus, dyes, metals, special clays, or 
finer grades of wool, could industries develop and com- 
pete successfully in distant markets. Cities favored by 

AMA [ 209 ] 14 


exceptional facilities for transportation, either on some great 
trade-route or with easy access to the sea, often developed 
important industries, but manufacturers usually depended 
on the local market within the bounds of their own terri- 
torium 1 . In the vast majority of cases the wealth of the 
city and the prosperity of its industries depended upon the 
economic welfare of its agricultural class. In the modern 
world all industrial activities are powerfully affected in 
normal times by rich harvests or by the failure of crops; 
and in the ancient world industry and agriculture were 
even more closely related. Besides, the revenues of the 
cities were largely derived from public lands, and the 
majority of wealthy citizens were owners of great estates. 
It is, therefore, apparent that the most powerful factors 
affecting both public and private economic life must be 
sought in an investigation of agricultural conditions 
throughout the empire. 

There is ample evidence that the soil was being 
gradually exhausted in the older provinces even under the 
republic 2 . The early colonial assignments were seven 
iugera. These were increased to thirty by Gracchus and 
to sixty-six by Caesar 3 . While it might be unsafe to draw 
the inference that land which once supported nine persons 
hardly sufficed for one at the beginning of the empire, 
yet the increased area of the later assignments is significant 
of a progressive decline in fertility. Columella, writing 
about A.D. 60, states that a fourfold return in grain was 
unknown on Italian farms at that time 4 . The soil of Sicily, 
Sardinia, Spain, Gaul, and Africa was exhausted in turn. 
The eastern empire undoubtedly gained its longer lease 
of life from the bounty of the Nile and the rich lands 
bordering on the Black Sea. As the soil grew sterile, 

1 Westermann, Am. Hist. Rev. 20 (1915), 724^.; Meyer, Kleine 
Schriften, 7<)ff.\ R-E. s.v. Industrie. 

2 Weber, Handworterbuch der Staatswissenschaft, s.v. Agrargeschichte\ 
Simkhovitch, Political Science Quarterly, 31 (1916), 20 1 ff.\ Heitland, 

3 Mommsen, Ges. ScAr. 2. %j jf. 4 Columella, 3. 3. 

[ 210 ] 


agriculture became unprofitable and farms were aban- 
doned. Under such conditions there would naturally be 
a shift of the agricultural population to more fertile areas, 
but the law of origo, which forbade the free movement of 
settlers from one municipal territory to another, was fatal 
to the best interests of agricultural development. The 
poorer farmers had the choice of two alternatives, either 
to join the urban movement, or to attach themselves to 
some patron as his coloni. The problem of resettling the 
waste fields was attacked by all the emperors. Augustus 
and his successors founded colonies. Tiberius forced 
capitalists to invest in lands 1 . Nerva spent sixty million 
sesterces in purchasing estates to be distributed among 
farmers 2 . Generous alimentary laws were enacted for the 
support of the agricultural classes. Veterans were given 
free allotments. Pertinax allowed squatters to occupy 
uncultivated fields, even on imperial estates, and if they 
brought their land under cultivation, full title of owner- 
ship was granted 3 . Three years' exemption from taxes was 
also allowed. Later more drastic legislation was attempted. 
Owners of fertile fields were required to take over deserted 
plots, and taxes were imposed in order to compel them to 
cultivate these lands. This system, called adiectio^, was 
oppressive and naturally unpopular, and was finally 
abandoned in 412. Restrictive laws were also drafted. An 
owner who found his estate unprofitable was forbidden 
to sell his farm slaves without a proportionate amount of 
his land 5 . The slaves were thus bound to the soil; and the 
same law was ultimately applied to the tenants or coloni*. 

1 Tac. Ann. 6. 16, 17; Suet. Tib. 48. Trajan required provincials who 
were candidates for office in Rome to invest a third of their wealth in Italian 
real estate (Pliny, Epp. 6. i. 9). 

2 Heitland, Agricola, 272. 3 Herodian, 2. 4, 6. 

4 Cod. J. n. 58. i; ii. 59. 5(3 6 4-375)>9(394)> " (4)> H(4'5)> 
16 (419). 

5 Cod. J. n. 48. 2 (357), 6 (366), 7, 8- 

6 The coloni were virtually bound to the soil by the legislation of Con- 
stantine (Heitland, op. cit. 393^.)- 

[ 211 ] 14-2 


It was also forbidden to sell a fertile part of an estate 
without a proportionate amount of sterile land 1 . That all 
these measures failed in their purpose may be seen from 
the fact that in 395 there were over half a million iugera 
of deserted farms in the single district of Campania 2 . 

The exhaustion of the soil was due in large measure to 
the primitive methods of agriculture which had been in- 
herited from prehistoric times 3 . Such antiquated tools 
were used that two or even three plowings were necessary 
before the ground was ready for seeding. Shallow cultiva- 
tion was the rule, and the resources of the subsoil were 
never tapped. Under these conditions the surface soil 
soon lost its accumulated store of humus. The supply 
of natural fertilizer was insufficient to restore the necessary 
elements to the land when it had become impoverished 
by frequent cropping. Artificial fertilizers were not avail- 
able, and the modern practice of restoring nitrogenous 
elements by sowing clover was unknown. While the theory 
of rotation of crops was familiar to writers on agriculture, 
the majority of the farmers preferred to allow the land to 
lie fallow in alternate years 4 . It cannot be determined 
whether the general desiccation, which spread over central 
Asia about the beginning of the Christian era, extended 
also over the Mediterranean basin and affected the fer- 
tility of the soil; but it is probable that cities of Syria and 
northern Africa developed under conditions of greater 
humidity than now prevail in those regions. 

Deforestation played a large part in destroying agri- 
cultural lands. As cities developed, the hills were stripped 
of forests to supply building material. As a result the 
moisture was not conserved in the ground, and the rain, 
flowing in torrential streams down the mountain-sides, 
not only left them bare of soil, as they are at the present 

1 Simkhovitch, op. cit. 237; Cod. J. u. 59. 10 (398). 

2 Cod. Th. u. 28. 2 (395). 

3 Simkhovitch, Political Science Quarterly, 28 (1913), 383^. 

4 Heitland, op. at. 291. 


day, but also filled up the water-courses in the plains 
below, creating malarial swamps where rich fields had 
once supported a large population. In Syria ruins of 
numberless towns are found in a region where wastes of 
barren rock now render the country absolutely impossible 
for human habitation. Yet this district once supported a 
great population enriched by the culture of the vine and 
olive. Recent investigation has shown that lumber was 
once plentiful in this region, and that the reckless stripping 
of the forests on the hillsides was the chief cause of the 
desolation which exists today 1 . In Greece, Italy, and in 
fact in every part of the Mediterranean basin where forests 
could be exploited for their lumber, the same process may 
be traced 2 . 

Not only was the fertility of the soil declining, but other 
adverse economic conditions faced the agricultural class. 
Those settled in the older provinces were brought into 
competition with farmers exploiting the virgin soil of 
each new addition to the empire. In particular, Egypt was 
not only endowed with a marvellous system of transporta- 
tion, but also renewed its rich fertility annually. Although 
Egypt as a granary was a source of strength to the empire, 
its possession dealt a serious blow to agriculture in other 
provinces where the yield per acre and per unit of labor 
was immeasurably less. Moreover, the great estates which 
rapidly developed in every province could be worked more 
economically than the small farm 3 . The owner of small 
holdings was compelled either to exploit his land and 
exhaust it more rapidly, or to bring larger areas under 
cultivation, although the latter alternative was almost 
impossible because of the difficulty of securing labor. In 

1 Butler, Geographical Review, 9 (1920), 7%ff. 

2 Cf. no. 1 1 8. The effects of deforestation in Greece and Italy are well 
known, but no study of the ancient problem has yet been made. 

3 On the great estates there was greater opportunity for diversity of crops, 
and probably more scientific methods were followed there than on the small 
farms. The wealthier landowner could tide over a succession of bad years 
in certain crops where his poorer rival must succumb. 

[ 213 ] 


the era of peace which followed the establishment of the 
empire, cheap slaves disappeared from the market, and 
the constant demand for recruits for the army drained the 
country districts of their vigorous manhood 1 . The poorer 
farmers were unable to meet the new conditions and 
many became involved in debt to the wealthy proprietors 
in their neighborhood. In the course of time they were 
obliged to surrender their property in payment of debts, 
and many were compelled to work out their obligations 
by remaining on their farms as tenants, and thus the way 
was prepared for the introduction of the colonate. Others 
abandoned their farms and flocked to the cities to be 
supported by municipal charities 2 . 

The lack of a cheap and adequate system of trans- 
portation was a most serious handicap to farmers living in 
inland districts. Grain is a difficult commodity to transport 
by land, and only those living within easy access to water- 
routes could hope to compete in distant markets. In the 
fourth century even the sea became practically closed 
to free commerce, partly because of the rigorous control of 
shipping by the government and partly because of civil 
wars. In the case of those farmers who were compelled 
to seek a market within the limits of their own township, 
prices were often controlled by the system of municipal 
charities whereby grain was purchased at a fixed price 
and distributed to the proletariat as a free gift, or at a 
nominal charge. Where transportation was difficult, the 
burden on the agricultural class was further increased by 
the heavy cost in time and labor of the liturgies imposed 
for convoying supplies for the army, or for the taxes paid 
in kind. The charges for the imperial post were particu- 
larly severe, especially in the later empire. 

Municipalities not only suffered a loss in revenues from 
the decline in value of their public lands, but also lost 

1 The aurum tironicum was later substituted, cf. Journ. Rom. Stud. 8 
(1918), 26 ff. 

2 Heitland, op. cit. 336 to end, passim. 


large portions of their territory, either through enforced 
sales to discharge public indebtedness, or by confiscation. 
Some of the emperors regarded municipal ownership 
lightly, and rounded out their own estates or gave gene- 
rous gifts to friends from this source 1 . Prosperou 
villages often gained municipal status, and were assigned 
a part of the territory of their mother city. Similar losses 
were incurred in the anarchy which prevailed during long 
periods of wars, when fortified villages usually became 
isolated and independent communities (castra^ oppida). 
Some of these villages adopted the magistracies and forms 
of municipal administration, but the majority were 
governed by an imperial or municipal official such as a 
curator^ defensor, or magister vici 2 . In consequence of the 
development of private patronage, as we have already seen, 
village-communities and private property passed out of the 
control of the municipalities. On the other hand, gifts 
and endowments in the early empire were often made by 
transferring landed estates to a commonwealth. The 
problem of making an endowment perpetual was a matter 
of genuine concern in the ancient world, and the method 
devised by Pliny, though expensive, probably represented 
the best policy which the jurists could devise in that age 3 . 
He also confesses the defect in the system which must 
have applied to all public leases, especially to those of 
short terms, namely, that the lessee was prone to exploit 
the land during the tenure of his contract, and to surrender 
the property at the expiration of the lease with its value 
seriously depreciated. A certain amount of territory was 
acquired through fines, but this source disappeared as the 
local magistrates lost judicial power. The estates abandoned 
by curiales could be added to the territorial possessions 
after three years, but it is doubtful if such additions were 
any gain 4 . If property could not be successfully managed 

1 Nos. 90, 1157. 2 Declareuil, op. cit. 310^*. 3 Pliny, f>. 7. 18. 
4 Cod. *J . 10. 59. i. The property of decurions who died intestate went 
to the curia in later times (Cod. Th. 5. 2. i). 

[ 215 ] 


under private ownership, it was likely to be still less 
profitable under public administration. 

Shortly before the second Punic war a law was passed 
forbidding Roman senators to engage in foreign trade 1 . 
This legislation was destined to play an important part 
in the history of Roman agriculture, for the senatorial 
class was forced to invest in land. The possession of great 
estates soon became desirable in acquiring social prestige, 
and the growth of latifundia began. But the prosperity 
of an agricultural state rests on the welfare of the small 
independent farmers in the community. This class, as we 
have seen, gradually disappeared as a few acquired wealth 
and gained senatorial honors, while the vast majority, 
unable to meet the competition of great estates or foreign 
producers, either joined the urban movement, or became 
tenants. As land became concentrated in the hands of a 
few, who were usually exempt from municipal obligations 
by virtue of their title of imperial nobility, the burdens 
of taxation and liturgies for the remaining citizens were 
greatly increased. Since the curiales were usually land- 
owners, their increasing charges became intolerable as 
their property steadily depreciated. In order to meet 
these charges, they were forced to exploit the land still 
more, and the process of deterioration was thus accelerated. 
Finally, many of them abandoned their property and fled 2 . 
Others sought to enter some vocation which would give 
them exemption from municipal charges. The emperors 
strove to check this movement by binding the curiales to 
their place of origin, and by forbidding them to enter any 
of the privileged professions. Since these measures were 
ineffectual, laws were passed requiring that the property 
of anyone who gained exemption should remain under the 
jurisdiction of the curia. The sole recourse left to the 
distressed curial, short of abandonment of his property 
and flight, was the right of disposing of his property by 
sale. This privilege was virtually withdrawn when it was 
i Livy, 21.63. 2 Cf. pp. 

[ 216 ] 


decreed that the consent of the governor or the curia was 
necessary before any legal transfer could be made. Viola- 
tions of the civil code were frequently punished by con- 
fiscation of property, which was added to the imperial 
estates. The municipalities accordingly suffered serious 
losses not only in the growth of private latifundia, but also 
in the development of imperial holdings. In the fourth 
and fifth centuries the Church also gained control of great 
estates by gifts and bequests. These estates were all 
exempt from municipal obligations, until Leo and Anthe- 
mius decreed that all curial property should remain under 
the jurisdiction of the curia^ even if it passed out of the 
hands of the curiales^. 

The legislation pertaining to the coloni may be traced 
in part to the scarcity of labor as the supply of slaves 
decreased, but the depreciation of the soil was also an 
important factor 2 . In early Roman husbandry voluntary 
tenancy was a familiar practice, but when Rome acquired 
her eastern provinces, she found a system of compulsory 
tenancy developed which differed little from medieval 
serfdom. The latter institution gradually spread over the 
whole empire, probably from the example set by the 
imperial estates. As we have already seen, the decline in 
the fertility of the soil led large numbers of farmers to 
incur indebtedness, which could only be discharged by 
working out their obligations in an involuntary tenancy 
from which they or their children could not escape. The 
spread of private patronage also fostered the development 
of the colonate, as farmers placed themselves under the 
protection of some neighboring land-baron, and, in return 
for the security of life and property granted them, entered 
his service in a relationship which ultimately became that 
of a colonus*. The emperors were forced to hold these 

1 Cod. J. 10. 19. 8 (468). 

2 For the history of the colonate, cf. especially Rostowzew, GescA. d. rom. 
Kol. and Heitland, Agricola. 

3 Zulueta, de patrociniis vicorum. 

[ 217 ] 


tenants in a form of perpetual leasehold in the effort to 
check the urban movement, and to secure an adequate 
supply of trained agricultural workers on imperial and 
private estates. By the beginning of the fourth century the 
coloni were bound to the soil in all parts of the empire, 
and in 357 it was further enacted that no land could be 
sold without the tenants attached to it 1 . A powerful 
instrument of oppression was put in the hands of the 
proprietors when they were held for the taxes of their 
tenants, and were authorized to collect them 2 . They were 
thus enabled to pass on the increasing weight of taxation 
to their coloni^ who were thus reduced to greater poverty. 
While the laws provided means of redress in cases of over- 
exactions, it is doubtful if any tenant ever dared to enter 
an action against his landlord 3 . In the fourth century the 
coloni were reduced almost to the level of agricultural 

Keen civic rivalries led to the construction of great 
public works to vie with those of neighboring towns 
without regard to economic advantages or necessities, 
and in this way the civic treasuries were so often ex- 
hausted that the emperors forbade such undertakings 
without the approval of the provincial governor. Wealthy 
citizens were usually not averse to providing temples, 
baths, or other public works as a memorial for themselves, 
or as a means of securing civic honors, but there was no 
glory in providing an endowment for maintenance, and 
this charge usually fell on the municipality. From the 
modern point of view the ancient city spent a dispro- 
portionate part of its revenues on the amenities of life, 
for example, games, theatres, baths, banquets, religious 
ceremonies, and the like, while little was used for the 
development of economic resources. The widespread 
system of municipal charities, whereby the urban poor 
were fed and amused, was also based upon a vicious policy, 

1 Cod. J. ii. 48. 2 (357). 2 Cod. TL ii. i. 14 (366). 

8 Cf. nos. 175, 1 80, 1 86, 190, 192. 


for it placed a premium on idleness, and fostered the 
movement from country districts to the towns. Moreover, 
the system of financial administration did not provide 
reserve funds from prosperous years against seasons of 
adversity. When hard times came, deficits were inevitable, 
and loans had to be made at ruinous rates of interest; 
and when a city once became involved in debt, escape was 

The cost of defending and governing the Roman 
empire steadily increased, while its resources in men and 
in wealth were steadily diminishing. The long series of 
defensive wars, and the struggles for the imperial power 
in the third century drained the resources of the citizens. 
When the power of choosing the emperor passed into the 
hands of the soldiers, they were quick to take advantage 
of their privilege, and increases in pay were often de- 
manded and granted 1 . Besides, the donatives were liberal 
and all too frequent in the quick succession of imperial 
rulers. Fresh levies of recruits were constantly required 
because of the steady and severe fighting, and the virile 
man-power was heavily drawn on, or if levies were not 
provided, an equivalent in money was exacted. A serious 
burden was imposed by the billeting of troops in towns 
and villages. The unfortunate residents suffered from their 
greed and licentiousness, and frequent appeals were 
directed to the emperor, but although stringent legislation 
was enacted to check the evil, the laws were not backed 
by any power which could enforce them, and the evil 
appears to have continued unabated 2 . 

In the gradual concentration of power in the hands 
of the central government, the number of bureaus was 

1 The notorious case of the auction of the imperial throne by the prae- 
torian guard may be cited (Herodian, 2. 6. 6). 

2 It is recorded as one of the merits of Pescennius Niger that he re- 
strained the exactions of the soldiery (Hist. Aug. Pesccnnius, 3). Cf. nos. 
113, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 152, 162, 163; Rostovtseff, Mus. Beige, 27 

2I 9 


steadily increasing. The reorganization of Diocletian, by 
which the empire was divided into prefectures, dioceses, 
and small provincial units, while at the same time civil 
and military commands were separated, saved the empire 
from civil war and lessened the political power of mili- 
tarism; but the number of officials was vastly increased, 
and the expense of administration was more than doubled 
with, unfortunately, no corresponding increase in effi- 
ciency 1 . There was no effective method of controlling the 
various departments, and the elaborate system of espionage, 
created partly through a genuine desire on the part of 
the emperors to control abuses, and partly as a result of 
the natural suspiciousness of an autocratic government, 
only served to create new methods of oppression and cor- 
ruption. An edict of Constantine in 331 reveals the 
deplorable inefficiency of the central government in 
controlling abuses, and the widespread corruption of 
officials of all classes, not even excepting the provincial 
governors themselves 2 . The complaint that there were 
more people living upon taxes than paying them was 
undoubtedly an exaggeration, but there was a sufficient 
basis in fact to justify the statement 3 . In the fourth 
century the proportion of consumers and producers had 
become too nearly equalized for an agricultural common- 
wealth whose resources were declining, and which could 
not exchange its manufactured goods for food and raw 
materials from other nations in any appreciable quantity. 
The depreciation of the currency which had begun 
under Nero was continued by successive emperors, ig- 
norant of fundamental economic principles, as a means 
of replenishing their exhausted treasuries and of meeting 
the mounting expenses of bureaucratic administration. 
By the time of Aurelian gold had disappeared from circu- 
lation. The coins purporting to be silver contained about 
5 per cent, of that metal. Where the tribute or dues were 

1 Cam. Med. Hist. i. *ff. 2 Cod. Tk. i. 16. 7 (331). 

3 Lactantius, de mort. per sec. 7. 3. 

[ 22O ] 


fixed, the depreciated currency meant a lightening of 
taxation, but when Aurelian made payments in debased 
coin and demanded taxes in another standard, he virtually 
multiplied the rates by eight. Diocletian devised a new 
system of taxation which applied to all provinces alike, 
and he abolished the tributes, which had been very un- 
equally apportioned. Under the new arrangement the 
privileges of immunity, which free cities and Italian towns 
enjoyed hitherto, were revoked 1 . The taxes were laid on 
land, which was classified according to its use for growing 
grain, or producing oil or wine. The various units were 
called iuga, each of which represented the number of 
acres which one man could work, and in the case of vine- 
yards or olive orchards were often rated by the number 
of vines or trees. Pasture lands were assessed according 
to the number of cattle. A head-tax was also imposed 
upon the agricultural laborers, men, women, and slaves. 
These taxes were levied in addition to those which had 
long been customary, the inheritance tax, customs dues, 
the aurum coronarium^ the aurum oblaticium^ and the 
tironicum. The taxes instituted by Diocletian were 
reckoned in the produce of the soil and not in coin. He thus 
extended the system which had already begun under 
Alexander Severus when salaries were paid in kind. While 
Diocletian's system of taxation was uniform in its applica- 
tion throughout the empire, and undoubtedly secured 
greater revenues, its injustice is apparent in that no dis- 
crimination was made between rich and poor iuga 2 . The 
assessment thus fell with undue severity upon the owner 
of unproductive farm land while his richer neighbor 
would escape with a comparatively light tax. The fact 
that the law-givers of the empire failed to devise an equit- 
able system of taxation based on sound economic prin- 
ciples must be considered as a very important factor in 
the decline of the middle and lower classes of land- 

2 Seligman, Essays on Taxation, s.v. Regressive Taxation. 
[ 221 ] 


owners, on whom the assessments fell with disproportionate 

The collection of taxes had been placed in the hands of 
local authorities ever since the system of farming out the 
revenues to the publicani had been generally abolished. 
The decemprimi and decaproti were responsible for the 
collection 1 , and any deficiencies were made up by them, 
but there is no evidence that this system was continued 
after Diocletian. A rescript of Aurelian made the whole 
order of curiales responsible, after the third year, for the 
taxes on estates abandoned by their fellow-members. In 
case they were unable to bear the burden, the land was 
to be distributed among the various local villages and 
estates 2 . Constantine issued an edict forbidding decurions 
to be held for the taxes of others 3 , but he later revived the 
law of Aurelian. Special imperial agents, called exactor es, 
were deputed to assist in collecting arrears, but the prin- 
ciple of collective liability of the curiales seems to have 
been the rule. Not only were the curiales responsible for 
the taxes on their own lands, but also, at least in certain 
periods, for those on senatorial estates. This burden was 
particularly heavy, because powerful land-owners could 
not be compelled to pay taxes. An interesting illustration 
of this is found in a law of 396 which separated senatorial 
and curial property, but when in the following year it was 
found that the revenue from the former had decreased by 
half, the old custom was revived whereby the curiales were 
responsible for both 4 . 

In addition to the taxes on land and on the agricultural 
classes, whether free, serf, or slave, the liturgies, both 
municipal and imperial, were imposed upon curiales with 
increasing severity. The maintenance of the imperial post 
was most oppressive; and the confiscation of municipal 
revenues caused the transfer of many liturgies, which had 
hitherto involved only personal service, to charges on 

1 Dig. 50. 4. r, 18, 26. 2 Cod. J. n. 59. i. 

a Cod. TA. n. 7. 2 (319). * Cod. TL 6. 3 . 3 (396), 4 (397). 

[ 222 ] 


property 1 . All these burdens fell on the land-owners, 
and were fatal to the development of agriculture. The im- 
position of the plebeian head-tax on the farmer and his 
help, while the city proletariat was exempt, gave, as a 
direct result, great impetus to the urban movement. 
Normally, the shifting of the population from the country 
to the town would inevitably adjust itself by bringing 
grain to a price which would encourage the revival of 
farming, but other factors prevented it. The population 
of the whole empire was decreasing as the result of 
plagues and famine, of the wastage of civil and foreign 
wars, and of religious persecutions 2 . The birth-rate also 
was steadily declining, although the emperors sought to 
encourage large families by elaborate alimentary laws and 
by grants of special privilege to families of three or more 
children. The maintenance of a large standing army 
where soldiers served long terms, although marriage was 
permitted them by Severus, the rapid rise of Christianity 
with the consequent increase in the number of men 
entering religious orders, and the development of monas- 
ticism increased the number of people who lived in 
celibacy. Towns dwindled to villages and finally dis- 
appeared. Only the few favored by exceptional environ- 
ment, or protected by secure walls of defence, survived 
the general decay. 

The growth of great estates and the disappearance of 
the small farmer deprived the local industries of their chief 
market 3 . Most of the estates had their own workshops 
where the simple tools and equipment were made, and 
much, if not all, of the food and clothing of the tenants 
was produced on the estate. There was little trade with 
the city, and this was carried on by primitive barter, since 
the depreciated coinage had no value as a medium of 
exchange. Foreign trade also declined as the local markets 

1 Cf. pp. 95 /. 

2 Seeck, Geschichu dcs Untcrgangs der antiken Welt, I, 296^. 

3 Wester mann, op. cit. 723^. 

[ 223 ] 


weakened. The division of the empire served to break 
trade-connections between the East and West, while the 
creation of the new capital at Constantinople put an end 
to many of the old trade-routes, and seriously affected 
the cities depending on them. The frontiers were fre- 
quently closed by wars, and trade with peoples outside 
the empire was broken off for long periods. The heavy 
burdens imposed upon ship-owners for the alimentation 
of the capitals strained the transportation system to the 
utmost. The cost of the government service was charged 
to the freight carried for private interests, and this practice 
served to discourage trade by sea. In the fourth century 
the feeling of imperial unity disappeared, and each pro- 
vince began to develop its own independent life as inter- 
course with other provinces ceased, and most of them 
became self-supporting and self-sufficient by necessity. 

Methods of manufacture were never improved in the 
ancient world, either because an adequate supply of slaves 
removed any incentive to develop mechanical devices so 
long as labor was cheap, or because inventive genius was 
lacking, or because traditional methods could not be 
varied by conservative people 1 . The restrictions imposed 
upon guild members controlled the supply of workmen, 
but were fatal to the establishment of new industries and 
to intellectual or material progress on the part of the skilled 
worker. The influence of state and municipal monopolies 
and the imperial workshops for munitions, clothes, and 
other articles may have played some part in the economic 
life of the municipalities in which they were located, but 
it is doubtful if they were important factors. 

While the worship of local deities undoubtedly con- 
tributed to the development of patriotism in the ancient 
city-state, the growth of scepticism and the influence of 
various philosophic systems had impaired the vitality 
of local cults long before the founding of the empire. The 
worship of the emperor was universal, and in this way may 
1 Meyer, Kleine Schriften, 79^.5 R.E. s.v. Industrie. 

[ 22 4 ] 


be said to have prepared the way for the adoption of 
Christianity, but it may be doubted if either of these cults 
had any real importance in municipal history in the im- 
perial period. The religious observances of pagan magis- 
tracies may have deterred Christians from seeking positions 
in the local government, but the early Church drew its 
members largely from a class which was ineligible for 
office. In the later period, when the Church began to 
attract members of the wealthier class, there is ample 
evidence that Christians took their part in municipal 
government 1 . After the recognition of Christianity as an 
official religion of the state every member of the com- 
munity stood on equal footing in regard to civic duties. 
When Julian sought to re-establish paganism, Christians 
" struck" in protest, but this is the only evidence of their 
unwillingness to take part in local affairs after Con- 
stantine 2 . 

The legislation dealing with the relations of Christians 
to the local curiae begins with Constantine. When he ex- 
empted officers of the Church from municipal liturgies, 
the curiales at once sought to enter holy orders, more 
from a desire to escape civil obligations than from any 
sincere religious conviction. There must have been a large 
number of Christians in the curial order, for Constantine 
was soon obliged to issue an edict forbidding them to 
enter the service of the Church. Similar laws were fre- 
quently issued by later emperors, but the very frequency 
of such legislation shows that the laws were continually 
violated 3 . In this way the municipality suffered a loss of 
curial members, but a remedy was found, as we have 
already seen, by subjecting the property of curiales to the 
curiae when any member of the order took up a profession 
which gave him exemption from local obligations. Church 
estates also developed at the expense of the municipalities, 
and the burdens on the laity increased proportionately. 

1 Declarcuil, op. cit. <)jf. 2 CoJ. Th. 12. i. 50 (362). 

3 Cod. Th. 12. i passim \ 16. 2 passim; cf. pp. noff. 

AMA [ 225 ] 15 


On the other hand, where the revenues of Church pro- 
perties were distributed in local charities, there was no 
economic loss to the community. 

While it may be true that Christianity turned the 
attention of its votaries to the future life rather than to the 
problems of the world about them, yet the identification 
of the municipality with the bishopric gave the Church 
a real interest in the preservation of the civic common- 
wealth. The development of the power of the bishop in 
judicial and administrative matters detracted from the 
influence of local magistrates, but the decline of municipal 
institutions began long before Christianity had become 
an important factor in the Roman empire. 

The biological theory of the decline of nations has 
received considerable attention in recent years. The prob- 
lem of race-mixture in the municipalities of the ancient 
world is a difficult study not only because of the lapse of 
so many centuries, but also because of the conflicting 
nature of the evidence. It is probable that most Italic 
and Greek stocks were themselves a mixture of different 
races. There is, however, little doubt that races of the 
Italic peninsula in the era of republican Rome were, in 
the course of time, replaced by other nationalities. Few 
of the old Roman families can be traced far down in the 
imperial period, and recent investigation has shown that 
the population of Rome in the imperial period was largely 
of foreign origin 1 . Many of the Italians went out to the 
provinces where they were ultimately submerged in the 
native population. Italy became peopled by provincials 
and aliens, many of whom had risen from slavery. In all 
provincial cities the liberal attitude of slave-owners led 
to the development of a large class of freedmen whose 
descendants were politically indistinguishable from the 
original members of the community. The development 
of the doctrine of origo in the imperial period tended to 
keep each city a self-contained unit as far as race-mixture 
1 Frank, Am. Hist. Rev. 21 (1916), 689^. 

[ 226 ] 


is concerned. Thus when the older members of the curial 
stock died out, their places would usually be taken by 
more progressive members of freedman origin. From the 
economic point of view, such replacements could hardly 
be considered as a loss to the community. The large influx 
of Nordic races in the later empire was far from being a 
source of strength to the community from the admixture 
of a purer and more virile stock. We are inclined to 
believe that the blending of races had less importance than 
the economic factors which we have already described in 
the decline of municipal life. Not less important is the 
fact that in the ancient city-state intellectual progress 
was closely related to political freedom and independence. 
Under the empire the government of each municipality 
came into the hands of a narrow oligarchy, which in turn 
was closely supervised by a paternalistic state. In the 
general atrophy of political institutions, even when the 
municipalities were enjoying great material prosperity, 
we must find the explanation of the loss of intellectual 
vigor, and the decline of literature, art, science, and 
philosophy. The influence of a court based upon military 
power and inspired by military traditions was also un- 
favorable to the development of any of the arts. Christi- 
anity turned its back on pagan culture, and when the new 
religion was adopted by the wealthier classes, the system 
of education which was devised for Christian youths led 
to a general disregard for the heritage of the past. 

In the later empire, when Hellenic culture had spent 
its force, the revival of Orientalism seems to have con- 
tributed to the return to the ancient village-communities 
which are characteristic of the Byzantine empire 1 . In 
the West the barbarian invasions caused the submergence 
of many municipalities and a form of tribal government 
appeared in many districts. Here also the village-com- 
munity was established and extended until it became a 
most important factor in the medieval period. It is, 
1 Ramsay, The Tekmorian Guest Friends, pp. 357-8. 

] 15-2 


however, beyond the scope of this investigation to study 
the conflict of municipality, tribe, and village in the 
Middle Ages. 

To sum up briefly the principal causes which contributed 
to the decline of municipal life, economic decay was 
due primarily to widespread depreciation of the agri- 
cultural resources of the territoria through unscientific 
methods of farming and the exhaustion of the soil. The 
independent farmers who owned small estates constituted 
the most important class in the community, and they went 
down in the struggle for existence under unfavorable 
conditions of production and competition. Their farms 
were swallowed up in the latifundia^ or great estates in 
private or imperial hands, or they were abandoned and 
became waste. Rural desolation was aggravated by the 
urban movement, and as wide areas lay uncultivated, 
malaria, famine, and plagues followed, each taking its toll 
of vital energy and of the productive power of the empire. 
Trades and industries in the towns depended largely on 
the purchasing power of the local markets, and as these 
declined factories became idle and trade with other pro- 
vincial cities fell off. While the resources of the munici- 
palities and of their citizens were steadily declining, 
financial burdens were steadily increasing. The necessity 
of supporting a highly organized bureaucracy and of 
maintaining a huge standing army, almost constantly 
engaged in costly defensive wars, proved too great a task 
for a nation whose resources were largely agricultural 
and were in process of exhaustion. An attempt was made 
to meet financial difficulties by successive depreciations 
of the gold and silver content in the currency, but finally 
the imperial coinage ceased to have any value, and trade 
was carried on by barter, while taxes were collected in 
kind. Finally, Diocletian attempted a reform in the 
currency and in the system of taxation. The latter, 
although it swept away certain inequalities of the old levy, 
fell with especial severity on the agricultural classes, and 

c 228 ] 


was economically unsound in its discrimination against 
the owners of less fertile land. The farmers were forced to 
exploit their lands for immediate returns, and the process 
of exhaustion was accelerated. In addition to the heavy 
taxes, the liturgies imposed for municipal and imperial 
service became more and more burdensome as the number 
of citizens liable to such duties not only decreased, but 
also found their capital resources declining. When the 
fixed charges approximated to or surpassed the income of 
curiales, many of them abandoned their estates, or sought 
some way of escape from their obligations. Thus it is that 
we hear of deserted curiae^ abandoned towns, and the 
rapid decline of municipal institutions. 

We have already traced the history of the transfer of 
judicial and administrative power from the municipalities 
to the central bureaucracy. To some extent this was due 
to economic causes, but imperial autocracy and local 
inefficiency played an important part. The whole ten-> 
dency of Roman administration was to discourage demo- 
cratic government in the cities, and to place all power 
in the hands of an oligarchy. Thus the vast mass of the 
people lost the political instincts which they had developed 
in their ancient city-states, which had played so important 
a part in the growth of intellectual vigor. Under the 
empire the local senatorial oligarchy, usually limited to a 
hundred men in each city, became an hereditary organiza- 
tion, and as its members were secured from all danger 
of overthrow by internal revolution, we must believe that 
they ultimately became dominated by personal interests. 
The wealthy senators gradually withdrew from the local 
organization as they became members of the imperial 
nobility. The remainder, secure in their hereditary privi- 
leges, squandered the resources of the city and oppressed 
the people. For this reason imperial appointments of 
curatores and defensores were made, and the transfer of 
legislative, judicial and administrative power to provincial 
governors and bureaucratic officials began and speedily 

[ "9 ] 


developed. A vicious circle was established as the atrophy 
of municipal institutions led to increased imperial super- 
vision, and bureaucratic control stifled political inde- 
pendence and initiative. Finally, the curiales, facing 
economic ruin, were reduced to the position of an imperial 
guild, whose sole purpose seems to have been the collection 
of taxes and the performance of liturgies. As the municipal 
governments lost political responsibility, political ideas, 
and political instincts, the vital spark of ancient civic life 
perished, and this factor, no less than the economic forces, 
had a powerful influence on the decline of municipal 
institutions, and reacted with deadly effect on the political 
vigor of the whole empire. 

The paralysis of social institutions, manifested in the 
creation of a rigid caste-system, binding the curiales^ 
members of guilds, and agricultural workers to their place 
of origin and to the station of life in which they were 
born, was due in large measure to economic and political 
factors. The emperors owning vast landed estates, and 
controlling industrial monopolies, favored legislation 
which bound the laborer to the farm or factory. While 
this policy provided a temporary solution of the labor 
problem, and served vested interests, the result was not 
only fatal, economically, to the development of new in- 
dustries, but by depriving the individual of all power 
of initiative or free choice in his vocation, and of all 
incentive to material and intellectual progress, his powers 
of production were lessened; and the reduction of the 
bulk of the population to a condition of serfdom affected 
the cultural standards of the empire far more than did the 
barbarian inroads. In the effort to preserve the municipal 
organization, the curiales were bound by legislation similar 
to that governing the guilds and coloni. When the citizen 
became less important to the state than his property, the 
" sinews of the commonwealth," as the curiales were 
styled in some of the Codes, were also paralyzed. 

It is futile to attempt to date the beginning of municipal 

[ 230 ] 


decline* Many of the forces which combined to destroy 
civic prosperity and political vigor were already operative 
in the days of the republic. Their development was some- 
what arrested and obscured by the expansion of the 
empire, and by the prosperity which followed the restora- 
tion of peace and security. But the newer provinces soon 
came under the influence of the forces of decay, and the 
weakness of the municipal units quickly reacted on the 
empire as a whole. This was clearly revealed in the civil 
wars and barbarian invasions of the age preceding Dio- 
cletian, Thereafter the history of municipal institutions 
as a vital element in the Roman empire draws rapidly 
to a close. The outward forms survived, but the breath 
of political life had departed. 



FOR the purpose of interpreting correctly the docu- 
ments on which our knowledge of the relations of the 
municipalities to the Central government rests, it is 
important for us to have in mind the different forms which 
documents affecting the cities took, to know the procedure 
which was followed in receiving petitions from the muni- 
cipalities or from citizens of municipalities, or inquiries 
from the governors of provinces, and to be familiar with 
the method of reaching decisions on the points involved, 
and of transmitting them to the persons or communities 
concerned. In such an inquiry it is convenient to consider 
the republic and empire separately, because the attitude 
taken by the government at Rome toward provincial 
communities and its method of dealing with them changed 
from the one period to the other. We shall limit our dis- 
cussion to the period preceding the accession of Diocletian, 
because almost all our documents antedate his assumption 
of the imperial purple. 

The documents under the republic with which we are 
concerned fall into three classes : leges^ senatus consulta, and 
edicta. Leges, including under this head plebis scita, were 
enactments of the popular assembly under the chairman- 
ship of a Roman official. Measures whose precise terms 
were specified in the bill submitted to the assembly, and 
which the people were asked (rogatus) to adopt, were styled 
leges rogatae 1 . When the people delegated to a magistrate 
or to several officials the right to draw up a measure, the 

1 Specimens of these laws preserved to us on tablets are the lex Antonia 
de Termessibus (no. 19) of 7 1 B.C. which is a plebiscite, and the lex de Gal Ha 
Cisalpina (no. 27) enacted between 49 and 42 B.C. For a full list of known 
leges rogatae, cf. Rotondi, Leges pubiicae populi Romani, 189486. 

[ 232 ] 


enactment was called a lex data. Among the earliest of 
these measures were the leges provinciarum 1 , which were 
prepared by commissions of ten senators. Municipal 
charters are commonly leges datae*, and in one of them 
reference is made to the appointment of a commissioner 
to draw up the measure 3 . Less important matters affecting 
municipalities sometimes came before the senate 4 , and not 
infrequently the decision of the senate was communicated 
to the community in question in the form of a letter from 
a magistrate 5 . 

Of the edicts which magistrates of a certain rank were 
empowered to issue, we are concerned primarily with the 
edicts of the governors of provinces, which have been 
described in another connection 6 . The originals of the 
leges or senatus consulta were kept in the aerarium at Rome 
in the care of the quaestors 7 , and copies were sent to the 
communities concerned. The edicts of governors were also 
of course published in the provinces. 

Under the empire we find the two classes of leges 
mentioned above, senatus consulta^ and edicts, as well as 
the constitutiones principum. During the principate of 
Augustus and in the first half of that of Tiberius we find 
some leges rogatae^^ but before the close of Tiberius' reign 
the popular assembly ceased to play an important part in 
legislation 9 . It was summoned, however, to confer the 

1 C/. pp. 4 8/. 

2 Good specimens for the republican period are the tabula Heraclcensis 
(no. 24) of 45 B.C. and the Ux coloniae Genetivae luliae (no. 26) of 44 B.C. 
For a list of known leges datae, see Rotondi, op. cit. 487-507. 

3 C/. no. 26, 1. 159. 4 Cf. nos. 5, 7, 10, and Bruns, 41. 

6 The S.C. de Tiburtibus (no. 7) takes the form of a letter from the 
praetor who presided over the senate. The S.C. de Oropiis (no. 18) of 
79 B.C. is a letter of the consuls embodying the decree of the senate. 

6 C/. pp. 5o./.;no. 2. 

7 Cf. Servius on Aen. 8. 322; Livy, 39. 4. 8; Cic. Phil. 5. 4. 12. 

8 Cf. Rotondi, op. cit. 441^. 

9 Sporadic instances of the calling of the comitia for legislative purposes 
occur under Claudius (Tac. Ann. ri. 14) and Nerva (Dig. 47. 21. 3, i). 
Cf. Liebenam, R.E. s.v. comitia, 711. 

[ 233 ] 


tribunician power on the princeps and to define the func- 
tions of that office 1 , and probably in this measure he was 
empowered to found colonies 2 , to change the status of a 
colony or a municipium, to grant Latin rights to provincial 
communities, to give Latin communities Roman rights, 
and to grant municipal charters. One may say therefore 
that all the leges of the imperial period, with which we are 
concerned, were leges datae*. 

With the disappearance of the popular assembly, the 
importance of the senate as a legislative body increased 
for a time. This was a very natural result, and the prince 
may not have been unwilling to see the change come 
about, because the time was not yet ripe for him to make 
himself the sole law-making power in the state. A survey 
of the known decrees of the senate of the early empire 
confirms from the negative side the conclusion which we 
have just reached from the positive point of view in dis- 
cussing the leges datae, for although we have a long list of 
senatorial decrees of this period of a legislative character 4 , 
none of them, except the "discourses of the prince/' deals 
with the relations of the imperial government to the 
civitates. It is clear therefore that measures affecting the 
cities emanated directly from the emperor, and that the 
oratio principis in senatu habita is important for our dis- 
cussion. In the year 23 B.C. Augustus received the 
privilege of bringing up any matter in the senate which 
he chose to submit 5 . This right was later extended, so that 
the prince could make as many as five proposals, all of 
them to take precedence of motions made by other mem- 
bers of the senate 6 . In the absence of the emperor these 
messages, or "discourses of the prince/' were read by a 
quaestor and adopted as decrees of the senate without 

1 Cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 346, 349, n. 4. 2 Op. cit. 2, 888_/. 

3 Cf. the leges Salpensana et Malacitana (nos. 64 and 65) of A.D. 8 1-84. 

4 Cf. Karlowa, i, 644-646 and Rudorff, Rom. Rechtsgeschichte, i, 106 

5 Cf. Cassius Dio, 53. 32. * Cf. Herzog, 2, 691, n. 2. 

[ 234 ] 


change. Perhaps from the time of Hadrian no one but 
the emperor proposed a measure in the senate. From the 
close of the second century the jurists cite decrees of the 
senate as orationes rather than senatus consulta, and the 
language of command takes the place of conventional 
parliamentary forms 1 . Several of these " discourses" 
concern the municipalities 2 . The most noteworthy is the 
oratio Claudii de iure honorem Gallis dando*. Historically 
the "discourses of the prince" were related in their origin 
to the decrees of the senate, but later took legally the 
character of constitutiones imperatorum. The part which the 
senate played in the trial of provincial governors has been 
discussed elsewhere 4 . 

If we turn to the edtcta^ in addition to the edicts of the 
emperor, which will be discussed later, we find decreta 
concerning provincial communities 5 , especially to settle 
matters in dispute between them 6 . 

Along with the leges datae the most important measures 
affecting the cities were the imperial constitutions. Of 
the constitutions we read in the Institutes 9 , quodcumque 
igitur imperator per epistulam constituit vel cognoscens 
decrevit vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat : haec sunt, 
quae constitutiones appellantur 7 . This is essentially the 
definition of Ulpian, quoted later in the Institutiones*\ 
Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem;. . .quod- 
cumque igitur imperator per epistulam et subscriptionem 
statuit vel cognoscens decrevit vel de piano interlocutus 
est vel edicto praecepit, legem esse constat. Haec sunt 
quas vulgo constitutiones appellamus. These two lists 

1 Cf. Girard, Manuel tltm. de drolt romf* 57. 

2 For a list of the principal orationes, cf. Cuq, " Mlmoire sur le consilium 
principis d'Auguste a Diocldtien" in Mtm.prts.par div. sav. 9, 2, 424-426. 
See especially no. 1 1 . 

3 Cf. no. 50 and Tac. Ann. n. 24. 4 Cf. pp. 135/1, 
5 Cf. nos. 58, 109, 165 and CIG. n, 2222. 6 Cf. pp. 152/1 

7 Cf. Justinian, Inst. i. 2. 6. 

8 Cf. Dig. 1.4. i. i. Gaius (Inst. I. 5) writes "constitutio principis est, 
quod imperator decreto vel edicto vel epistula constituit." 

[ 2 35 ] 


agree in their inclusion of the epistula, decretum^ and 
edictum. They differ only in the fact that Ulpian adds the 
subscript^ a special form of the letter, and mentions the 
interlocutory decree along with the decretum. To these three 
classes of constitutions most scholars add the mandatum^ 
and the term rescriptum^ rather than epistula, is a more 
exact general term for a public letter of the emperor 1 . 

Imperial edicts were similar in form to those issued by 
republican magistrates, but the right to issue them seems 
to have been conferred on Augustus by a special act about 
19 B.C. 2 They were written in black letters on a white 
background 3 , and displayed in Rome and in the provinces, 
in both Latin and Greek, when necessary. Sometimes it 
was provided that the edict should be engraved on a 
bronze 4 or marble tablet 5 . They were sometimes addressed 
to a community. In this case they were published un- 
changed 6 . At other times they were addressed to an 
imperial official or the governor of a province. Such edicts 
the official incorporated in a proclamation of his own 7 . A 
fair number of edicta principum are extant 8 , and some of 

1 For discussions of the different classes of constitutions and their nature, 
cf. Cuq, op. cit. 424-461; Mommsen, St. R. 2, 905^.; Karlowa, I, 646- 
654; Krueger, Gcsck. d. Quellen u. Lift. d. rom. Rechts, 92-100; Bruns- 
Pernice in HoltzendorfPs Encyclopadie d. Rechtswissensckaft, i, 143; 
Girard, op. cit. 58-61; Wilcken, Hermes, 55 (1920), 2^.; Haberleitner, 
PhiloL 68 (1909), 283^. Haberleitner adopts the following classification: 
I (a) edicta, (H) orationes, (c) adlocutione$\ II (a) epistulae, (K) re script a, 
(f) subscriptiones; III (a) decreta, (H) interlocutiones. Faass, Archiv fur 
Urkundenforsckung, i (1908), 22 1/., finds one hundred and sixty-four 
imperial constitutions extant in epigraphical form. Of these one hundred 
and twenty-one are in Greek and forty-three in Latin. The most prolific 
emperors are Pius, Hadrian and Severus, with thirty-two, twenty-six, and 
sixteen respectively to their credit. Of the one hundred and forty epigra- 
phical constitutions which can be dated, one hundred and twenty-three 
antedate Diocletian. 

2 Cf. Herzog, 2, 151, n. i. 3 cf. Livy, i. 32. *; 9. 46. 5. 
4 Cf. Cod. Th. 2. 27. i, 6; 14. 4. 4; no. 49. 5 Cf. no. 51. 

6 Cf. no. 49. 7 cf. no. 165. 

8 Rudorff, op. cit. i, 132-136; Cuq, op. cit. 456-459. 

[ 236 ] 


them concern the cities 1 . Technically edicts held good 
only during the reign of the emperor who issued them, but 
frequently by formal act or tacit observance they con- 
tinued in force after his death 2 . The subject-matter of 
an imperial edict was introduced by the characteristic 
formula: Imperator . . .dicit or AvTOKpdraip. . .Xcyei 3 . 
After this phrase the first person is used. The date and 
place of composition are indicated, usually at the begin- 
ning, sometimes at the end of the document 4 . The edicta, 
which have been discussed above, like the orationes^ and 
the adlocutiones**, with which we are not concerned here, 
were addressed to the public. The other constitutions, viz. 
the rescript, the decretum, and the mandatum^ were not 
necessarily intended for publication. 

Rescripts were sent in reply to the inquiries (relationes^ 
consultationes) of provincial governors or other officials or 
in answer to the petitions (preces, libellt) of individuals or 
communities. Replies to officials usually took the form of 
independent letters (epistulae). In answering private 
persons or communities the emperor either appended his 
answer to the request or made notes upon it. His reply 
in the first case was called a subscriptio^ in the second, 
adnotationes. The letters which passed between Pliny and 
Trajan furnish us with the best specimens to be found 
in literature of the inquiries of an official and the replies 
of the emperor. There are extant several important 

1 Cf. nos. 33, 49, 5 1 ; Gaius, Inst. i. 33, an edict of Nero conferring the 
right of Roman citizenship upon any Latin, who, having a fortune of 200,000 
sesterces, devotes half of it to the construction of a house in Rome; Dig. 
50. 7. 5, 6, an edict of Vespasian forbidding cities to send a deputation of 
more than three members to Rome; Pliny, N.H. 3. 3. 30, an edict of 
Vespasian conferring the ius Latii on Spain; Gaius, Inst. I. 93, defining the 
rights of peregrtni admitted to citizenship; Dig. 50. 4. 1 1, an edict of Pius 
prescribing the cursus honorum for cities; Dig. i. 5. 17, Caracalla's edict of 
A.D. 212 (cf. no. 192). 2 Cf. no. 33. 

3 Cf. no. 49 and Bruns, 68, 69; Cod. J. 3. 3. 2; 3. n. i; 7. 62. 6. 

4 Cf. no. 49 and Bruns, 94; Cod. J. 10. 61. i. 

6 Cf. for instance, Hadriani adlocutiones ad cxcrcitum Africanum, CIL. 
vin, 2532 s= Dessau, 2487. 


epigraphical rescripts dealing with municipal affairs 1 . 
Many imperial letters are of course to be found in the 
Justinian Code 2 , 

An epistula opened with the name and titles of the 
emperor in the nominative and the name of the addressee 
in the dative, sometimes with salutem or salutem dicit 
added 3 . This part of the letter is called the inscriptio. At 
the end of the letter there is usually a word of greeting, 
and an indication of the date and place of composition 4 . 
Rescripsi or scrip si found in subscriptiones is in the hand of 
the emperor 5 , and recognovi) which appears at the end of 
them 6 , is probably the counter-signature of the official 
in charge of the bureau and certifies that the document 
correctly represents the decision reached in the case 7 . 
Proposita^ which is common at the end of certain rescripts 
up to A. D. 291 8 and rare thereafter, indicates the date and 

1 Cf. nos. 61, 63, 151. The most complete specimens of subscriptiones 
on municipal matters are nos. in, 139, Bruns, 84, and CIL. vi, 3770. 
No. 159, after certain introductory formulae, contains the preces of the 
Scaptopareni, followed by the decision of the emperor. For an analysis of 
no. 154, see the commentary on that inscription. For the character of the 
subjects covered in an adnotatio, cf. Seeck, R.E. i. 382/1 

2 On relationes and consultationes, cf. especially Cod. J. 7. 61 and 62. 
For references to subscriptiones \ cf. Cod. J. 7. 43. i ; Dig. 4. 8. 32, 14. 

3 Cf. nos. 61, 63. 4 Cf. no. 61. 

5 Cf. no. in, col. iv, 1. 8; no. 139; Bruns, 84. 

6 E.g. nos. ni, 139, and Bruns, 84. 

7 Cf. Preisigke, Die Inschr. v. Skaptoparene, especially p. 63. The term 
recognovi has given rise to much discussion. Mommsen holds (Ges. Schr. 
i, 479; 2, 179^*.) that the memorandum, as prepared by the official, and 
the final document, were laid before the emperor. Upon the former he 
wrote rescripsi, on the latter recognovi. Karlowa (Neue Heidelberger Jahrb. 
6, 214 and Rom. Rechtsgesch. i, 652, n. i) thinks that the words attest the 
correctness of the document, when compared with the official copy kept in 
the archives. Cf. BrasslofF, R.E. 6, 2O7/., Kriiger, Gesck. d. QueUen u. 
Litt. d. rom. Reckts, 96, Preisigke, op. cit. 4-12, and Wilcken, Hermes, 55 
(1920), 55, 56, n. 3. 

8 Cf. for instance Bruns, 87, 88 and Kriiger, op. cit. 96, n. 43. Wilcken 
(op. cit. 14^.) thinks that the propositio applied to subscriptiones^ but that 
epistulae were only published on order of the emperor, or the magistrate 
receiving them. 

[ 338 J 


place of publication 1 . Latin was the language regularly 
employed in rescripts, but some of those sent to Greek 
lands were in Greek 2 . Rescripts might confer a privilege 
or immunity on an individual or community, or decide 
an administrative matter, or they might settle a legal 
question. The influence of a letter of the former kind did 
not usually extend beyond the person or corporation 
concerned. Letters of the second sort furnished pre- 
cedents or legal principles for the future. Judicial 
epistulae increase in number with Hadrian. The increase 
may well be due to the issuance of the edictum perpetuum 
by Hadrian, and the consequent necessity of consulting 
the emperor on doubtful points 3 . 

As we noticed above, the jurists speak of three classes 
of constitutions, viz. edicts, rescripts, and decreta. In the 
early period, however, the expression decretum principis 
was applied to any announcement of the emperor's will 4 . 
In this early wide sense, therefore, it included all classes 
of imperial constitutions. In the narrower meaning which 
it commonly took in the later period, it is applied to the 
emperor's decision on judicial questions submitted to him 
in the first instance or on appeal. To the list of constitu- 
tions given by the ancient jurists, modern scholars com- 
monly add the mandata or individual instructions given 
to governors and other officials, by which they were to 
be guided in the administration of their offices. Naturally 
in course of time a somewhat fixed set of principles or 
methods of government in the provinces had developed, 
so that a large part of the mandates given to one governor 
was identical with that of another governor. The practice 
of sending out the governor of a province with instructions 
goes back to the republican period 5 . The mandates were 

1 Cf. Karlowa, I, 651; Brassloff, R.E. 6, 208; Preisigke, of. cit. 65. 

2 Cf. e.g. Dig. 5. i. 37; 5. i. 48; 48. 3. 3; 50. 6. 6, 2. 

3 Cf. Girard, Manuel tltm. de droit rom. 59. 

4 Cf. Hesky, R.E. 4, 2289. A document which some scholars style a 
decretum is called by others a rescriptum. 

5 Cf. Kruger, op. cit. 99, n. 59. 

C 239 ] 


of great importance to the municipalities, because they 
dealt especially with police regulations, criminal law, and 
the competence of a governor 1 . Mandates, for instance, 
forbade cities to make grants of money 2 , instructed 
governors to apprehend and punish culprits wrongfully 
released by municipal magistrates 3 , and ordered them to 
send to the emperor for trial a decurion when charged with 
an offense which was punishable by exile or death 4 . 

If we turn now from a consideration of the documents 
themselves to their preparation, we notice that for a long 
time under the republic the senate directed the foreign 
policy of the Roman state. It appointed a commission 
of senators to draw up the lex provinciae b \ it received 
requests from cities for charters 6 , for a recognition of 
their independence 7 , for the granting of privileges 8 , and 
the redress of grievances 9 . With the coming of the new 
regime, the princeps took over the provinces in which an 
army was needed, appointed his own financial repre- 
sentative in senatorial provinces, and exerted a great moral 
influence over all the provinces. The growing importance 
of the "discourses of the prince" must also have lessened 
the authority of the senate in foreign affairs. Naturally, 
therefore, inquiries and petitions from abroad came to be 
addressed more and more frequently to the emperor. In 
making his replies he needed helpers and advisers. As 
foreign questions grew in importance and numbers, the 
business was systematized, bureaus were established, and 
a board of imperial counsellors was organized. These 
bureaus were known as the officia or scrinia a rationibus^ ab 
epistultS) a libellis, a memoria, a studiis, and a cognitionibus 1 . 
The officials a rationibus had charge of imperial finances, 

1 For a list of items from certain manJata, cf. Cuq, op. cit. 460 f. 

2 Cf. Plin. Epp. ad Trai. in. 3 Dig. 48. 3. 10. 

4 Dig. 48. 19. 27, i, 2. 5 Cf. pp. 48^. 6 Cic. in Verr. 2. 122. 

7 Cf. no. 5. 8 Ditt. Syll? 601. 9 Cf. Bell. Afr. 97. 

10 For the development of these bureaus, cf. Hirschfeld, 29^., 318^.; 
Cuq, op. cit. 363^*.; Karlowa, i, 544^.; Rostowzew, R.E. 6, 210^.5 von 
Premerstein, R.E. 4, 220^. 

[ 240 ] 


supervised, for instance, the collection of taxes, appro- 
priations for the army, for frumentationes y and for the 
construction of public works. The officials ab epistulis 
prepared and despatched imperial replies to the letters of 
governors and generals, and drew up instructions for 
imperial officials. The bureau a libellis had charge of the 
petitions addressed to the emperor by private persons or 
by communities, and concerned itself primarily with legal 
questions arising between subjects, or subject communities, 
and between them and the state. The bureau a memoria, 
which is not mentioned until rather late, assisted the 
emperor in cases requiring immediate action. It probably 
set down in writing the official speeches and oral decisions 
of the emperor and adnotationes. The department a 
studiis grew out of the bureau a libellis and perhaps in- 
vestigated questions outside of administration and law, 
such as those of religion. The officials a cognitionibus took 
up minor judicial questions, perhaps in civil cases only, 
which were not laid before the consilium. 

Matters which were too important to be submitted to a 
bureau came before the consilium principis, which owed its 
definite organization to Hadrian 1 . It was made up of 
certain trained jurists, receiving salaries, and known as 
consiliarii Augu3ti and adsumpti in consilium^ and the amid 
and comites of the emperor who had no fixed salary 2 . The 
emperor presided and rendered the decisions. A vote was 
taken, usually by ballot, but the emperor was not bound 
by the opinion of the majority, 

It remains for us to consider briefly the method of 
preparing, publishing, and preserving state documents. 
An edict was of course drawn up by the magistrate issuing 
it. Senatus consulta under the republic were put into their 
final form by a committee of senators 3 , and the method 

1 Hist. Aug. Ha Jr. 18. i. 

2 On the consilium principts, cf. Cuq, op. cit. 328^.; Hirschfeld, 339^.; 
Mommsen, St. R. 2, 989^.; Seeck, R.E. 4, 926^.; Herzog, 2, 7$6ff. 

3 Cf. the S.C. de Bacckanalibus (Bruns, 36) and S.CC. dc ludis 
saccularibut of 17 B.C. (Bruns, 46). 

AMA [ 241 ] 16 


of bringing bills before the popular assembly is so well 
known as to need no comment here. Important measures 
of any one of these three classes were engraved on wood, 
stone, copper, or bronze, displayed where they would 
be seen by people concerned, and copies of them kept in 
the temple of Saturn or in some other depository in Rome 1 . 
With the centralization of foreign affairs in the hands of 
the emperor, a large number of departments was organized, 
as we have already noticed. We can see in some detail 
the course which would be followed by a petition or an 
inquiry from a provincial community or a private person 2 . 
The request might come through the governor of a pro- 
vince 3 , or it might be delivered at Rome in person or by 
a messenger 4 . On arrival at Rome it went to the proper 
department, and from there, if an important document, 
to the consilium. The emperor in the consilium gave his 
decision in general terms; and the appropriate depart- 
ment put the reply in proper form. The head of the 
department wrote recognovi upon it to indicate that it 
conformed to the emperor's decision and met the require- 
ments in the case, and to attest its authenticity the em- 
peror set down on it the word rescripsi or scrips*. 

In cases of minor importance the facts and precedents 
were collected, and a tentative answer for the approval 
of the emperor was drawn up in a department. The answer 
might take the form of an epistula^ or independent letter, 
sent alone 5 , or accompanied by the libellus^^ or the form 
of a subscript 7 or of adnotationes. It might be sent directly 
to the inquirer 8 , or to him through an imperial official 9 
or some representative of the supplicant 10 . Sometimes it 

1 Cf. Dziatzko, R.E. 2, $6i/.; Mommsen, St. R. 3, 4i8/.; Kubitschek, 
R.E. i, 287^. 

2 Cf. Preisigke, op. cit. 44 ff.\ Wilcken, Hermes, 55 (1920), 38^. 

3 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 58, 59. 

4 The protest from the Scaptopareni (no. 1 39) was delivered by a certain 
Aurelius Pyrrhus, acting as an intermediary. 

6 Cf. no. 61. 6 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 59. 7 Cf. no. 139. 

8 Cf. nos. 59, 61, 63. 9 Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 59. 1 Cf. no. in. 

[ 242 ] 


reached the petitioner in the form of a copy made at Rome 
by such a representative 1 . A brief analysis of one of the 
documents in which the last method of procedure was 
followed may illustrate many of the processes outlined 
above 2 . In Gordian's rescript we have at the beginning 
the words Bonafortuna prefixed by the Scaptopareni when 
the rescript was engraved. Then come the date and place 
at which the copy of the original in the archives was made: 
Fulvio . . . scrip fa sunt. It is made at the instance of Aurelius 
Pyrrhus, the representative of the Scaptopareni, whose 
name and position are given. Immediately thereafter 
stand the preces of the Scaptopareni, followed by the de- 
cision of the emperor (Imp. . .debeas). The emperor has 
written rescripsi and the director of the department, 
recognovi. In place of the names of the witnesses to the 
copy the Scaptopareni have had the word signa engraved. 
The original document in the archives, therefore, began 
with the preces and closed with recognovi. 

Interesting facts concerning a particular inscription 
may often be learned from an examination of it. An 
imperial letter sent directly to a community was usually 
addressed to the magistrates, senate, and people 3 , but 
sometimes to the magistrates and decurions only 4 . Occa- 
sionally reference is made to the deputies who brought 
the petition 5 , or to the intermediary at Rome who pre- 
sented it 6 , or the deputy records the fact that he has de- 
livered the emperor's reply to the local magistrate 7 . In 
one letter we are informed that it was written in Latin 
and translated into Greek 8 . This letter, intended for 
certain troops, was published in their winter quarters 9 , 
and still another the duoviri had cut on stone 10 . In those 

1 Cf. no. 139. 

2 This analysis of no. 139 is based on Preisigke, op. cit. 74, 76, 7879 
and Wilcken, op. cit. 38^. See also the literature cited in note 7, p. 238. 

3 Cf. no. 130. 4 Cf. no. 61. 6 Cf. no. 61. 
6 In no. in a certain Lurius Lucullus. 7 Cf. no. 83. 
8 Cf. Riccobono, no. 66. 9 Ibid. 10 Cf. no. 61. 

[ 243 ] i6-z 


which have been copied from the originals in the archives, 
the copyist sometimes notes the change from one hand- 
writing to another in the original 1 . 

All subscriptiones were publicly displayed, as well as 
those epistulae whose publication the emperor or the magis- 
trate receiving them should order. Those concerning 
provincial communities were displayed both in Rome and 
in the community concerned 2 . They were also preserved 
in the Commentarii principum^^ being assigned to different 
sections according to their contents. Inside these sections 
they were probably grouped under the several provinces, 
with subsections for each year 4 . Perhaps undevicensimus 
in the rescript of Pius to the Smyrnaei 5 indicates that this 
document is No. 1 9 in the roll for a certain quarter of the 
year 6 . With certain comparatively unimportant changes 
made in the organization and management of the archives 
in the period after Diocletian 7 we are not concerned here 8 . 

In Egypt the imperial will is expressed by means of the 
oratio 9 , edictum^^ rescriptum 11 , and epistu/a 12 . The language 
employed in these documents is usually Greek, but Latin 
is also found. Edicts were commonly promulgated from 
Alexandria, but were also issued from other cities 13 . Im- 

1 Cf. no. rn, col. iv, 1. 9. 

2 Cf. Preisigke, op. cit. 64^.; Wilcken, Hermes, 55 (1920), 1-42. 

3 von Premerstein, R.E. 4, 737 ff. 4 Cf. Preisigke, op. cit. 72. 
5 Cf. Bruns, 84. 6 Cf. Wilcken, op. cit. 40. 

7 For these changes cf. L^crivain, Diet. Dar. 4, 845/1 

8 There is little definite information to be had about the archives, or 
commentarii, of the western municipalities except that which is to be found 
in two or three inscriptions (e.g. GIL. vm, S. 15497? XI > 3^ T 4)- Cf. 
Kubitschek, R.E. I, 2987. For the Greek cities cf. Jahreshefte d. ost. 
archaol. Inst. 7, Beib/att, 44; 16, 17 ff. 9 270, and especially, Wilhelm > 
Beitrage zurgr. Inschr. 2$%jjf. By the time of Justinian town records were 
no longer kept with any care, cf. Novellae^ xv, praef. "cum (defensores) 
nullum habeant archivum, in quo gesta apud se reponant, deperit quod 

9 Mitteis, Chrcstomathte, 370. 

10 Mitteis, op. cit. 372, 377; Ditt. Or. Gr. 664, 665. 

u Mitteis, op. cit. 375, 376; Wilcken, Hermes, 55 (1920), iff.\ Bruns, 91. 

12 Wilcken, Ckrestomathie, 153, 158; no. 189. 13 No. 195. 


perial rescripts, as a general rule, were forwarded to the 
prefect and published in Alexandria. In a few cases they 
were sent direct to a local magistrate, although it is prob- 
able that a copy was also sent to the prefect. Imperial 
epistulae were sent to private citizens of Greek or Roman 
birth. Copies of these documents are comparatively rare. 
The prefect also issued edicts in Greek. They were pub- 
lished in Alexandria and usually forwarded with an 
epistula to the strategi with instructions to post them in an 
appropriate public place 1 . In one instance local magis- 
trates append their signatures to indicate their cognizance 
of the document, which seems to have been circulated for 
this purpose 2 . In another case the magistrate takes oath 
that the document had been published by him as directed 3 . 
It is evident that edicts of the emperor and of the prefects 
and their rescripts were widely known to the public, since 
copies are found throughout Egyptian nomes and they 
are frequently cited by the natives. The minor officials 
of the bureaucracy also issued their instructions in writing, 
usually in the form of epistulae or eTrtcrraX/xara. 

Since the bureaucracy in Egypt was highly developed 
and the number of secretaries very large, the task of caring 
for the official records must have been very serious. That 
the archives were not always properly housed is evident 4 , 
and very little can be learned about the method of pro- 
viding for the municipal or village records. None of the 
numerous buildings or offices recorded in the papyri can 
with certainty be ascribed to purely municipal purposes 5 . 
Possibly, since the relation of state and municipality was 
so close, the records of both may have been combined. 

1 Nos. 162-165. 2 Wilcken, Chrestomathie* 13. 

3 P. Fay. 24. 4 Archiv fur Papyrusf one hung, 6, \ooff. 

5 The more important buildings for preserving records in Egypt are the 
following : ypa</>iov, dyopavo/xctov, 

Cf. Mitteis, Chrcstomathic, 1 88; GrunJziigc, 

[ H5 1 







Italics indicate the restoration of a lacuna, or 
minor corrections in the text. 

< > indicate ancient interpolations in the text. 
( ) indicate the expansion of an abbreviation. 


[ ] indicate the restoration of a lacuna. 

< > indicate an erasure by the editor. 

( ) indicate the expansion of an abbreviation or 
an addition by the editor. 


[ ] indicate the restoration of a lacuna. 
[[ ]] indicate an erasure by the scribe. 
indicate an erasure by the editor. 

< > indicate additions by the editor. 

( ) indicate the expansion of an abbreviation. 





(196-194 a. Chr.) 

Viereck, Sermo Graecus, I ; 7G. ix, 2, 338; Ditt. Sy//* 593; 
CIG. 1770. 

Tiros Ko/Wrtos, crrparrjyos vTraros 'Pcopaiayv, Xi>peTto>i/ 1 rois 
rayols teal rr\i 7ro\i ^aipeiv. 'Evrei /cal ev rols \oi7rots Traaiv I 
(fravepav Treiroij/ca/jLev rr)v re I8iav real rov brj/j,ov rov 'Pay/Jiaicov \ 
Trpoaipeo-iv fjv eyopev etV V/JLCIS oXocr^epoi?, j3e/3ov\yj/JL0a /cal \\ eV 5 
Tofr 6^779 7ri$l%ai Kara TTCLV pepos TrpoecrTTj /cores \ rov eVSo^of, 
a/a fjLTj^ ev rovrois e^cocrcv ^a? fcara\\a\elv ol ovtc CLTTO rov 
/3e\TtcrTOL> elwdores dvalarpefacrdai,. f 'Oo~ai yap Trore a7ro\6t- 
Trovrai, fcrijcreis | eyyetoL /cal oi/ciat, rwv /cadrj/covo-cov els TO 
STJ/JLOCTIOV \\ TO f Pa>/xata)i/, rrdcras SiSo/jiev rr\i v/ierepai, TroXet, j 10 
teal eV TOI^TO^? /jLaflrjre rrjv Ka\otcayaOlav rjfjicov \ /cal on 
ev ovOevl <f>L\apyvpf]cr[a]i, ^e/3ov\r)^e6a, 

dpcra teal <f>i\oSoiav. "Qaot fjiev\roi /JLTJ 
eialv ra)v eV^aXXoj/TO)^ avrols, \\ eav v/j,a$ 8iSafa)(7a/ /cal 15 
<f>aiva>vrat, evyvaifjiova \e\yovres, <TTo^a^b/ii/a>i/ V/JL&V e/c ra)v 
vrr /JLOV yeypa/jL\fjivcov eyKpiaettiv, /cpiva) Si/catov elvai diroKad- 
lo~racr\Qai avrols. \ "Fjppaxrffe. 

From Chyretiae. This is the earliest document from inscriptional 
sources which deals with the relations of Rome and the Greek states. 
For this reason we have included it here, although Greece was not 
subject to Rome at this time. The Aetolians as allies of Rome had 
captured and sacked the city of Chyretiae in 200 B.C. (Livy, 31.41.5). 
The property of the partisans of Philip in the city after the battle 
of Cynoscephalae was confiscated, and became part of the public 
property of Rome. When war with Antiochus threatened, Flamin- 
inus instituted a milder policy towards the Greek cities. Accordingly 
he restored to the Chyretiaeans all lands confiscated from their 

[ 249 3 


citizens still held by the Roman state. The restoration was made 
to the city with the right of reinstating the former owners if they 
satisfied the magistrates of the justice of their claim. While the 
tone of the letter is that of one desirous of securing the goodwill of 
the Greeks, the terms laid down for the restoration of the land to 
the former owners indicate the attitude of a master towards a 
subject people. It is also evident that, in settling the affairs of 
Chyretiae after the war with Philip, Flamininus favored the pro- 
Roman parties in the state (cf. pp. 69 /. ; Rostowzew, Gesch. d. rom. 
Kol. 286). 


(1893. Chr.) 

CIL. n, 5041; Dessau, 15; Bruns, 70; Riccobono, p. 248. 

L. Aimilius L. f. inpeirator decreivit, | utei quei Hastensium 

servei | in turri Lascutana habitarent, | leiberei essent; agrum 

5 oppidumqu., || quod ea tempestate posedisent, | item possidere 

habeieque | iousit, dum poplus senatusque | Romanus vellet. Act. 

in castreis | a. d. xii k. Febr. 

A bronze tablet found in 1866 on the probable site of Lascuta 
in Spain, now in the Louvre. Paullus probably received the tide 
of imperator, which he bears in this inscription, in consequence of 
his victory over the Lusitani in 190 B.C. (cf. Livy, 37. 57. 5). Since 
he probably left Spain in the autumn of 189 B.C., and since this 
decree is dated Jan. 19, the date of the inscription is probably 
189 B.C. The people of the turris Lascutana were made free in 
the sense that they were taken from under the control of the 
Hastenses. Control of them was now transferred to the Romans. 
There are no cases known of attributi attached to communities 
which were not autonomous; cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 766. The 
Lascutani do not acquire full right of ownership to their land, but 
hold it at the pleasure of the Roman people and senate; cf. Momm- 
sen, St. R. 3, xvn, n. i; Karlowa, I, 447. The order of the 
words poplus senatusque , as opposed to the imperial order, senatus 
populusque, is significant. 

[ 250 ] 




(189 a. Chr.) 

Ditt. Sy/J* 6i2; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 10. 

ov$ KOI. . . | . . . [Trept T7?9 TroXeoK Xeu#6pi]a9 ical rov 

lepo[y d 

(vacant versus duo) 

5/7ropt09 IIocrTO/uo9 A.Viciov vios, arpaTTjyos r Pa>/zatW, rait 
/co([i/du Tail/ AeX^ftii/ xaipeiv. Ol Trap' vfiwv a7ro<rTaXei/T9 
7rpe<r/86u]|Tat BouXwy, pa(rvtc\fjs, 'Ope<rra9 
TOU tepov Ka[l TT)? TroXeco? SieXeyrjcrav <f>i\OTipia$ ovOev 
7roi/re9] | /cat 7T6pi r^9 \,evOpia$ teal dveiatfropias r)j~iovv, O7ra>9 
a[i)r6^o/io^ /tat arXZ9 waiv r) re 7ro\i$ teal 77 %wpa rai^ AeXc^ai^]. | 
T ( i,va)a'icT ovv Se&oy/jievov rrji <rvy/c\iJTa)i t TO re tepoi/ TO[I) 'A?r6X- 

cruXoi/ elvat,, dvt,<r<f>6prjTov & /cat] || rrjv 5 
/cat T77*> yu>pav, /cal 8[ia 7ra^r]o9 avTovo^povs 
slvai TOVS 7roXtra9 ........... eXevffepov? o^JJTa9 /cat TroXt- 

. . . .TO re 

/cat TO Te]|/xi/o9, /ca^a>9 Trdrpiov avTO?9 ef dpxffs [vTrfjpxev r iva\ 
ovv i8[r)T, crT\\o/jiv vpiv dvriypa(f>ov]. 
(vacant versus duo) 

IIpo TjfJLCpwv recra-dptov vwvwv Matfa)^ S?ropto9 
Aevfciov vioSy (TTpaTijyos eV >co/iTtcot (?) crin/e]|ySoi;Xeu<7aTO 
avyrc\iJT(i)i' ypa(f)[o/JLV(oi Trapfjaav 6 Seti/a TOU Seti/09. . ., 6 

Fal'oi;, Te/3e'pto[9 KXa 

pl lepov] \ dav\ov, 7ro 
/cat auToz/6/xou, Trepi TOUTOU 

poTepo[r AeX0o?9 TaOTa 5 
/cat Mai/ta>t 'A/ctXta)t ISofe, TOVTOH Tait tcpi/tari 

(vacant versus duo) 

. . . . ?J 

From Delphi. After the Aetolian domination was ended the 
Romans displayed great kindness to the Delphians. We publish one 

[ 251 ] 


of a series of documents which bear upon the relations of Rome and 
Delphi (Ditt. ty//. 3 607-615, 821, 822, 825-827). 

In settling the affairs of Delphi Manius Acilius defined the 
limits of the territorium^ a settlement which was later a subject of 
dispute (Tod, International Arbitration^ nos. 23, 26). He also con- 
fiscated the lands of Aetolians and Locrians resident in this area 
and gave them to the city and to the temple (Ditt. Syll? 610). The 
Delphians had difficulty in dispossessing the owners and appealed 
to Rome. The ambassadors were slain on their return journey, and 
a new embassy was sent to complain of the outrage and to secure 
a copy of the senatorial action on their former request. The answer 
of the senate is given in the letter of the consul (Ditt. Syll? 61 1). 
The Delphians are permitted to expel those aliens whom they 
choose, and may allow others to remain who are amenable to the 
laws. It is evident that the Delphians were afraid of the vengeance 
of the Aetolians for the expulsion of their fellow-citizens, and 
desired the support of Rome before taking action. When the war 
was ended the Delphians sent another embassy to Rome to secure 
the confirmation of the acts of Manius. The document which is 
published above contains the record of the proceedings. At least 
four inscriptions were recorded on the stone. Of the first, only 
the last two lines are preserved, but it probably contained the plea 
of the ambassadors. The second is a letter of the praetor to the 
Delphians giving a summary of the decree of the senate and 
enclosing a copy which is recorded in the third document. The 
right of asylum is acknowledged; the city is granted freedom and 
immunity from tribute; the citizens are to be autonomous for all 
time and left in the enjoyment of their own laws. The subject of 
the fourth document is unknown. Compare the letter of the 
praetor Valerius to the Teians (Ditt. Syll? 60 1), where the Romans 
promise immunity from taxation although there is as yet no question 
of Teos being subject to Rome. 

[ 252 ] 


(ca. 189-188 a. Chr.) 

CIG. 3800; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 3; Ditt. Sy//. 3 618; Rev. 
It. an. 19(1917), 237 /. 

[ .................... ] a-rparrjybs vTraros 'Pw^aicov \ [ical 

Sij/jLapxoi teal TI <ru7/cX?7T]o9 'HpatcXewrcov rrji ftovXfjt, teal rS)i 
&r)\[/jia)i, jfaipeiv']. 'Ei/efru^oi/J r^Liv ol Trap* VJJLWV Trpea-fteis Ata9, 
Atr}9, Atoi/u|[<rto9, . . . .]/i[ai/]8po9, [Ei;] 877/^09, Moo-^os, 'Apto-ret- 

&79, Mei>?79, avSp$ /ca\\[\ol /cdyaOol], OL TO re [i/rT^Jtcr/xa 5 
dTre$a)/cay teal avrol &i\y7)<rav a/co\ov\[0ti)$ rol]<; ev rai[6 


/tat 7rtpa<r6/L6^a, Trapayeyovorayv vptov 669 rr/i/ 
riarTi]/*, Trpovoiav Troi,el<Tdcn, rifv eVSe^o/ie^i/, aet 
dyaffov 7rapa[i\\Tioi, yev]6iJiVO(,* o-vy%a)povfjiv 8e vfiiv TIJV 10 
re \V0piay KaBon real \ [ra?9 a]\\at9 TroXecrtr, oaat 77/16^ TTJV 
7TiTpO7rr]v eScotcav, e^ovaiv v[<{>' \ aurou9 7rd]vra ra avrco/jt, 
7ro\iTV(r()ai, Kara rou9 v/Jierepovs 1^0/101/9, | [/cat eV r]o?9 aX\ot9 
Treipa&o/jLeda evxpijarovvres vfilv del rti/09 dyaffov \ [7rapacr]ioc 
yiveaOat, aTroSe^o/JLeda 8e xal ra Trap' u/uwy^ <f>i\dvdpc0Tra teal 
ra9 || [7rt<rret9, /v]at avrol Se TTipa(rop.e6a /it 778^1/09 \eLTrea9at, ey 15 
^aptro9 aTroSoo-ef | [a7r6{TTa]X/fa/ze^ Se 7rpo9 t>/xa9 Aevtciov 
"OpjSiov rov 
07TO)9 /JirjBel 

From Heraclea at Latmus. We have adopted the readings of 
Holleaux (rz;. //. ^. 19 (1917), 237 ff.}. The period is evidently 
the first invasion of Asia Minor by the Romans in the war against 
Antiochus. The Heracleans hastened to join the Romans and 
apparently sent an embassy to Rome to secure the ratification of the 
promises made by the commander of the Roman forces in the field. 
The consul at Rome promises the embassy that their state shall have 
its freedom and the right to use its own laws. Henzen {Ann. Inst. 
1852, 138) restored the name of Gnaeus Manlius Volso in the 
first line and assumed that this was a letter issued by him as proconsul 
in 1 88 B.C., when he had been sent out at the head of a commission 
of ten to settle the affairs of Asia. Holleaux shows conclusively that 
this restoration and interpretation is incorrect. 

[ 253 ] 



(170 a. Chr.) 

Viereck, Sermo Graecus, n; Bruns, 37; IG. vn, 2225; Ditt. 
Sy//* 646; Riccobono, p. 199. 

KoiVro? Ma6i>609 TLTOV vib$ GTparijybs rr\i <rvvic\ri\T(ot, crvvs- 

/3ov\evcraTO ev /cofieriwt, Trpof)jji,ep\[)\vTrTa el 

5 rpa<f>o/JLv<i)i | Traprjaav Mai/6O9 'A*a\6O9 Mainou 

TtT09 No/tucno9 Tirov vio<$. Ilepl &v 6cr| 

cravro irepl T&V icaO* au|[r]oi/9 Trpay/xara)!/, oiTive? eV rr/t <f>i\iai 

riji | rj/jLTpat, evepewaV) OTTO)? avrois So^cia'^i/, | [oJZ? ra /va^' 

10 avrovs TTpdyfAara J*r)<yij<ra)VTai,' Trepl rov\\rov rov 

[TT]I/T aTrord^rji, ol av aurewt e/c rcSi/ 

t, eSoge. \ Hporepai 

15 elSvtov 'QfCTaypPpicov ypa<f>o/jLva)i 7rapfj\\<rav 
Kot'vrov uio9, MaapACO9 K\au|S6O9 Maap/cou uto9, 

avrol \6 

ov /ca Trep opewv 

a avTwv eye^iyloveKrav, ravra THJLWV /ti[e]i/ eveicev 
20 e8o||^ez^. ITepl apy&v /cat Trept icpdov /cal TrpoaoSow O7ra)9 avrot | 


(f)i\iav rrjv rjperepav TTpo rov rj T*dio<? Aloicp\Tio<} TO 
7rp09 TTJV 7r6\t,v 6(T/Sa9 7rpO(rr)ya\yv, O7ra>9 ovroi 
25 erry Se^ra r[a] ZyyiGTa /cvpievcoo'iv. ''ESo^ei/J. || Fle/cu 

KOL TOJV VTrap^ovrcov avrois' ov Trore | TA a VTWV 

[ra] eavrwv avrols e^ew ef^t | e&o%ev. ' flcravrax; Trepl &v 
ol avrol \6yov$ eTroirjaravTOj O7ra)[<;] \ ol avrojjio\oi ol 10101 tci 
(ftvydSes o^T69, Trjv atcpav avrols O7ra>9 | rec^icrai e^rjc teal e/cct 

30 KaTOiK&Giv ovroiy /cadoTt ev(f)dvio-av, oi/||ra)9 efiofei/' O7ra)9 etcel 
tcaToi/ctoo-w teal rovro reixio-cocriv. "ESo|fei/. Trjv Trokiv 
ovfc eSot-ev. * flo-avrcos Trepl <$v ol avrol \ \byov 
Xpvcrlov, o avv^v^tcav eis o-refyavov, o|7ra>9 669 TO K.aTTTa)\iov 
crrefyavov fcarao-fcevdo-coo-w, rouro69, /ca^|[ort] eve<f 

35 avrols a,Tro$o0p, o[7ra>]9 TOVTOV TOP vrefyavov 69 || [TO] 
\LOV /caTacTfcevdo-wo'iv OVTWS aTro&ovvat, ebogev. f 
Trepl <v ol avrol \6yovs eTroirfcravTO, dvOptoTcovs, 06Tii/9 vTre-> 

C 254 ] 


va\y\ri\a roi$ 8rjpocriot,<; Trpdy fiacre rols 77/46X6/20*9 /cal rot9 eavrcov 
elcriv, | [o7r]o>9 ovroi reare^covrat, TT6/ot rourou TOU 
av Koft/|[TO>]i Mati/ton arparrjydSc etc r&v 

real 7-779 l&ias Trt||[<r]Tea>9 borer), ovrco? iroielv eSofei/. 40 
OtVti/69 6/9 aXXa9 TToX6*9 d\Trrj\0o(rav real ov^l TT/0O9 roi/ Trap' 
crrparrjyov Trapeyevovro, o?ra)9 | /Lt^ 6t9 rdt,v rcaraTropevcov- 
Trepl rovrov rov TrpdyjAaros 7T/3O9 

VTrarov ypd/jLjjLara dTroo-relXai, eSo^ez/, 07rea9 Trepl rourou 
8^|[az^]otat TTpoae^iy fcaOo)? av avrwt, rc rcov 8rj^o(7ia)if TTpay- 
pdrcov real \\ [r]^9 ISias Trt<7T6O)9 <f>aivr}Tai. "ESofei/. | 'flcravTO)? 45 
oi avrol 

Aiovvcriov 6^ ijj3(*)v' ravras ere rovrayv rcSz/ Tr6\6|ci)j/ afyelvcu 

i/, /cat oTra>9 6t9 Wt(7ySa9 ^ Kare\6a)cnv. v E8of er. || [ f fl](raura>9 50 
ou raura9 Ta9 ryvvacrcas i)Spta9 crui/ dp^vptwft | 6tJ9 TOI/ 
tvevicelv eiTracrav Trepl rovrov rov 7rpdy[fJia\ro]<; 
vcrrepov evavn Tatov Aoreperiov ftovKevcrao-Bai eSogev. \ 
f flcrai/Ta)9 7T6/?t c3i/ ol avrol t<r/36t9 evefydviaav Trepl crirov real 
6X[at]|ou 6aurot9 fcoivwviav Trpo9 Ti^atoi/ llaz/Socrt^oi/ yeyovevat,* 
Trepl TOU||[T]OU roO Trpa7/iaro9 ^ai/ Kpirds \a/3eiv ftovXcovrat,, 55 
rourot9 Kpira? 5o[i)]|^at e'Sogev. f llcrai/Tft)9 Trept aw ot aurot 
\07OU9 eTTowjo-avro Trepl rov \ jpd/ji/jiara Sovvai tcr/SeOcrtz/ 6t9 
Alra)\iav KOI 4>a)/ct8a' Trepl rovrov \ rov rrpdy^aro^ tcr/SeOcrt 
real Kopcwevo-iv 6t9 AircoXLav real 4>a>t|8a /cat e'ai; TTOI; 6t9 aXXa9 
TroXetv /3ov\(*>vrai, ypd/ji^iara <f)i\dv\\0pa)Tra Sovvat, e$o%ev. 60 

From Thisbe. In the Macedonian war Thisbe, Haliartus, and 
Coronea remained loyal to Perseus, driving out the Roman party 
in their cities. When C. Lucretius advanced against Thisbe, it sur- 
rendered without a contest. The Roman praetor restored the city 
to the partisans of Rome, who were recalled from exile, and the 
Macedonian supporters remaining in the city when it surrendered 
were sold into slavery (Livy, 42. 46, 63, where Mommsen reads 
Thisbas instead of Thebas in both chapters). The pro-Roman party 
in control of the city sent an embassy to Rome for the settlement 
of problems which had not been adjusted by the praetor. The 
public lands, revenues, harbor, and mountains, which had appa- 
rently been confiscated, were restored to the city. For the next ten 

[ 255 ] 


years, only those citizens who had been friendly to Rome before 
Lucretius captured the city were eligible for magistracies, or priest- 
hoods, or as treasurers of the public revenues. In view of the fact 
that there was danger of the anti-Roman party returning and driving 
out the supporters of Rome, the latter asked permission to fortify 
the citadel and dwell there. This request was granted, but the 
Romans refused permission to rebuild the walls of the city, probably 
with an eye to possible future complications. The Roman party 
was small and weak, and there was danger of their being driven 
out. The senate instructed Quintus Manius to take necessary steps 
to prevent an uprising on the part of residents of Thisbe whose 
loyalty was suspected. The direct request of the ambassadors to 
imprison these men was refused. The consul, Aulus Hostilius, then 
in Macedonia, was ordered to take such action as he deemed ad- 
visable about the return of the exiles. The senate probably left 
these questions in abeyance intentionally in order to have a reason- 
able ground for interference in the affairs of Thisbe at any time. 
The senate thereby definitely abandoned the policies of Flamininus 
in his first settlement of the affairs of Greece. It is interesting to 
note that the Italian trader had soon penetrated Greece after the 
first invasion by Roman troops. Gnaeus Pandosinus, a native of 
Pandosia in southern Italy, had leased a part of the public lands of 
Thisbe, paying a certain percentage of the yield in grain and oil 
to the municipal treasury as rental. There arose some dispute in 
connection with this contract, which the senate referred to arbiters. 


(164 a. Chr.) 
Ditt. Sy//. 3 664. 

Oi crrparriyol Xap/z/Sei 7TifjL\rj \ rel A^Xou %aipiv. TevofJLV(^v\ 
7r\iovci)v \6ycov ev ret ftov\i \ trepl rov Soyparos ov fjveyicev \\ 

5 fc fc//^9 ?;//,?7T/cno9 yvaievs vTrep r&v Kara ro 

/AT) Ko>\veiv av\rov avolytiv Kal OepaTreveiv \ ro lepov 
10 tcaOdirep fcal 7Tp6r\\pov, ypdtyai Se ical TT/OO? <re 7T\pl rovrwv 
t/7roTJTa^a/-ii> 8e <TOI Kal rov ei>e|^$6z/ro9 UTT' avrov 
TO avrlypa<j>ov.\\ 
15 Koi/ro9 MLwvKios Koi'vrov \ u/09 a-rparrjyos rel <TvyK\ij\ra)i, 

[ 256 ] 


Xevo-aTO ev ico\fieri(i)L elSviol? eWp#(a)Xa|[p]uu9' ypa- 
<f)OfjLvov Traprjcrav \\ IloTrXto? Ylop/cio? HoTrXiov, Te|/3e/cHO9 20 
Te/Bepiov \ Kpu<7TO/ufa9, Mazuo9 Qovr^ios Ya'tov 

| f P?;i/cuo9 \6yovs eTroiij&aro, \\ 6Vco9 TO ez/ 25 
rtSo9 avrui Otpajrevew e|fei, Ar;X/ou9 8e /cto- 
\veiv KOI | roy ef \6r)vu>v ^rrap^ov \ TrapayivofMevov wi e'Xacr||croi/ 30 
depajrevei,' Trepl rovrov \ TOV TrpdyfAaros ovra)? e8o|^6i^' /ca^a>9 
TO Trporepov ^OepaTTtvev, evzxev i^^v depaireveiv e^eanv TOV \\ 35 

From Delos. Although Delos at this time was under the ad- 
ministration of Athens, and the latter was a free city allied with 
Rome, the senate did not hesitate to interfere in the internal 
government of the island. Demetrius appealed to Rome to permit 
the opening of the Serapeum on Delos and the renewal of the cult 
which the Athenians had forbidden. He secured a decree of the 
senate in his favor, and, armed with this, he came to Athens and 
presented it to the senate. It is apparent from the wording of the 
letter which the Athenians sent to the governor of Delos that 
considerable opposition had arisen in Athens over this decree which 
is extremely brusque and softened by no diplomatic amenities. It 
is not even addressed to the Athenians nor is any request made to 
them to respect the wishes of Rome. Contrast with this the letter 
of Flamininus (no. i). For the date of this document cf. note by 
Hiller, Ditt. *S>//. 3 664. 

(ca. 159 a. Chr.) 

C1L. i, 20 1 - xiv, 3584; Dessau, 19; Bruns, 39; Riccobono, 
p. 204. 

Cornelius Cn. f. pr(aetor) sen(atum) cons(uluit) a. d. in nonas 
Maias sub acde Kastorus. | Scr. adf. A. Manlius A. f., Sex. lulius 
. . ., L. Postumius S. f. | 

Quod Teiburtes v(erba) f(ecistis) quibusque de rebus vos pur- 
gavistis, ea senatus | animum advortit ita utei aequom fuit nosque 
ea ita audiveramus, || ut vos deixsistis vobeis nontiata esse : ea nos 5 
animum nostrum | non indoucebamus ita facta esse, propterea quod 

AMA [ 257 ] 17 


scibamus, | ea vos merito nostro facere non potuisse, neque vos 
dignos esse | quei ea faceretis, neque id vobeis neque rei poplicae 
vostrae | oitile esse facere; et postquam vostra verba senatus audivit, || 
10 tanto magis animum nostrum indoucimus, ita utei ante | arbitra- 
bamur, de eieis rebus af vobeis peccatum non esse. | Quonque de 
eieis rebus senatuei purgati estis, credimus vosque | animum vos- 
trum indoucere oportet, item vos populo | Romano purgatos fore. 

Bronze tablet found at Tibur in the sixteenth century, now lost. 
The use of the second person in the verbs shows that this document 
is a letter from the praetor, containing the substance of a senatus 
consultum. It is in the form of a statement first made to the Tiburtine 
deputies in the senate. For the conventional form of a 5.C., cf. 
Abbott, 230, 413 ff. The date is fixed by the fact that L. Cornelius 
Lentulus Lupus, who was consul in 156 B.C., held the praetorship 
in 1 60 or 159 B.C. (cf. Miinzer, R.E. 4, 1386 /.). For confirmation 
of this date, cf. also Willems, Le senat de la republique rom. I, 25O/. 
Tibur had belonged to the old Latin League. It was at this time 
a civitas foederata, being one of the socii Latininomtnis. Whether or 
not it was under the aequum foedus of Sp. Cassius is not clear (cf. 
Marquardt, St. f^erw. I, 47, n. 3). It became a municiptum by the 
legislation of 90 B.C. A not uncommon cause of complaint against 
Italian cities was their failure to furnish the required contingent 
of troops (cf. Willems, op. cit. 2, 692). What the question at issue 
in this case was we do not know, but the point of interest in the 
document is that Tibur' s explanation of the incident is laid before 
the senate, probably by a legation (cf. quod Teiburtes verba fecistis), 
and that the senate speaks for the Roman people and communicates 
its decision through its presiding officer. 

(159-1473. Chr.) 

/<?. ix, 2, 89; Ditt. Syll* 674; de Ruggiero, U arbitrate pub- 
blico, 8; Tod, xxxiv; Viereck, Sermo Graecus^ 12. 

[^rpar^ayeovTos T&V tyeacraXwv Aeoi/rof/? | rov ' 
Aapicraiov, ev Se Nap0atcia)[t, \ dp^ovT^cov K/HTWI/O? roG ' 
[rov 4>e(]St7T7roi;, PXavfcera TOV 

[ 258 ] 


ypd<f)T) TO] BoyfMa TO yevopevov vrro <rvyfc[\tj\Tov eVt ar^rparrjyov 5 

rov] pa(rv/jLij8eo$ Qepatov. \ [Fato9 
Av\ov u/09 Ma7/az/o9 err pa\[ri]yos T]r)t 
arvv/3ov\evo'aro 7rpo||[. . . .va)]v)v KotimXta)!/ 67 
ypa<f>o\[/j,eva)t, ri\apr\Gav K6tVro9 (2)TaTtXt?;z/o9 KoiVrou 
AoTaVt09 FzWou vib[s \ 'A. . . .r)v\jj) y 

epi/a], Ilepl &v eo-o*a\ol MeXt- 

7T/)6/xa^o9 IToXtVa | [Trpe- 15 
eTroirjaavro, ai/8p69 /ca|[Xo6 /cayaj^ot teal <f>i\oi 
Trapa Brf/jiov /caXoO | \^Kaya6o\v /cal (f>i\ov dv^d^ov (TC), 

[<f>i\iav <i\vpiayjiav r avevetocravro, 7re||[/3i, ^eopa9] 20 
fcal 7Tpl %a)piov epr^fiov \ [etTracraz/j, fJieO* 179 ^ci 
69 T^yn <f>t\iav rov | [8^/iou T]OU f P&)yu,a6O)i/ Trapeyevovro, 

v ) 25 

07ra)9 TOVTO TO 7rpa\[y/jLa afcepa\Lov avrols airo/carac-ratif) ovra) \ 
[tcaOa)? TrpoTpo\v tVt MT/oWou /cai tVl Wecr(7aXa)2/ | .......... 

xal eVi TW^ TTepi \lv\\ov Matce\[&6v(*)v tceicpi\p,evov avroi? %, 
ravrd re ra K[pi\\/j,aTa Kvpia avroi]$ $ irepl rovrou rov TTpd- 3 

KOI NapOaiCLGVGiv \ [o7ra>9 rov 
a rov Trapvra tcpvrj JJL ^\[t-\i\Ttiai ...... e]v ravrrji rfji 

rtov Srjfjiwv e\Tri,rperrbvr<t)v] || . . 35 
. /cal rrepl wv OecrcraXo! | Nap^a/c(,et9 
aTa9 Ta[ . . | ..... ,7rpeo-/3e]fTdu Xo7o[i/9J eTrfo^^a^To Kara \ 

, . . a^8pt*9 AcaXoi || /cd^aj^ot /cat 40 
<f>i\ot, rrapa Srjfjiov tca[\ov Ka\ya6ov /ca]i <u\[ou cru/i/ia^ou T 

re avtvetoaavro teal I 

Tear Trpa^J/iaTwf^ Tail/ fcad* avrovs Si\\y]rio'a[v] rrepi 
[/cat] ('[6]p[coz> rrepl T>)]9 T6 || a$[r)]p'n\_i*<tvri$] r[fjs Kara 45 

s /cat TW^ t'epa)i> Kpir^oi^ z^6J/t/C7;/ce||i/at 5 

[T]at, 01)9 vofjiovs TtT09 | Kot7/cTto9 v?raT09 aTTo T^9 Taii^ Se/ca 
7rp6a-|y96UTcii; yvd)fjLij$ eScotcev, /cat AcaTa 86y/j,a \ aruytc\)jrov,7rpi 
re rovrwv rwv 7r[p]ay/j,d\\\_r(o]v erei avwrepov rplry eVl rpiwv 55 

[ 259 ] iy-z 


Masyvtfrcov, KeK\^pL\^eva elvai Kara v6fjLov[s], \ O7r&>9 ravra Kvpia 

y ofro)9 /cadcos /cal aXXot? | 76701/69 eanv Trepl rovrov rov 

60 TrpaypaTO? \\ o#Ta>9 ZSogev ^dpira fyikiav o-vaaa^Lav \ \a\va- 

veoMTaaQat, rovrois re <f>t,\av0pa)7ra)s d\7roKpi,0rivai y avSpas fca\ov$ 

Kayadovs f jrpO(7\ayopvo'a(,, ocra KeKpiaeva ecrrlv Kara vouovs | 

65 o&9 Ttro9 Ko'ly/cnos U7raro9 eSco/cei/, ravra fca\\0(t)<; Kexpifjieva 

e<rrlv ovr(o SOKCL fcvpia elvai $elv \ rovro re /J,rj v%epe$ elvai, 

baa Kara vouovs Ke\Kpi^eva ecrrlv aKvpa iroielv. Rev id re 

GKarepoi? Tdi\o<; 'OcrriXio? arparrjjo^ rov raaiav Sovvai, 

70 Ke\\\~\evcrri drro crrjerepritov voua>v e/carov elKO&i \\ [Trej^re 6/9 

exdcrrrjv Trpeafteiav, ovra) KaOax; av \ [avr&i e/c] rwv ^nouicDv 

Trpayadrwv Triar *|[a>9 re rr)$] iSias <t>aii>r)rat,. "ESogev. 

This inscription is engraved on two sides of a stone found at 
Narthacium in Thessaly. It is probably earlier than 146 B.C., since 
no reference is found in it to the provincial organization of Achaea 
by Mummius and his commission of ten in that year (cf. Willems, 
Le senat de la republique rom. 2, 705, n. 3; de Ruggiero, op. cit. 254^ 
and because the two peoples in the controversy are spoken of as 
friends and allies of the Roman people terms which would hardly 
be applied to provincial cities. On the other hand the fact that 
Hostilius, the praetor who presided over the senate, was not consul 
until 137 B.C. prevents us from dating the inscription much earlier 
than 150 B.C. 

The inscription records the settlement of a dispute between the 
cities of Melitaea and Narthacium by the Roman senate. The 
Melitaeans claimed that they owned the territory in question when 
they were admitted into the friendship of Rome and that the land 
had been awarded to them by arbitration in previous decisions. The 
ambassadors of Narthacium claimed that the land had been awarded 
to them by Titus Quinctius and that his action had been ratified 
by a decree of the senate. Furthermore, the dispute had been 
arbitrated recently by a mixed tribunal from Samos, Colophon, and 
Magnesia, which had given a decision in their favor. The senate 
decided in favor of Narthacium, thus confirming the arrangement 
of Flamininus. In the same way, in deciding a similar question at 
issue between Priene and Samos, the senate upheld the arrangements 

c 260 j 


made by Manlius and the senatorial commission (Ditt, Sy//. 3 688), 
which had been confirmed by a judicial decision rendered by the 
Rhodians acting as arbiters. Cf. pp. 153^". 

(ca. 139 a. Chr.) 

Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 4; GIG. 1543; Ditt. Syll? 684. 

'ETT* 0eofco\ov A 0)^09, 7pa/u,/xaTe|o9 rov crvvebpiov Srparo- 
/cXe'o9. | K(HVro9 C l>tt/3io9 KoiWou Ma 
&vfjiai\(oi> TO49 apxovai fcal avveBpois fcal rrfi rroXei 

l)V 7Tpt || Kv\\fil'LOV <TVVG?)pU)V /JL<baVLCT(ivT(OV /AOL 7Tpi 

<rvvT\\(r6evTa)v Trap* vplv d&tKijfjLciTfov, \eya> 8e virep 
tca\ <f)0opa$ r&v ap^(ei)(cv real 
eye\ yovei <ipx r )yo < * TJ 1^ 0X7/9 
TavpojjLeveo? 6 \ teal roi/9 VO/JLOVS ypdty 
drro^oOeic^i rot9 || ['A];fluofo VTTO 'Pw/iateoi; TroXtrfe/ajf, Trept 10 
(Lv ra Kara /xt'pov 8if;[\]#[o|//,ei/ er Ilajrpat? /ztra roO ?ra[p]oi/- 
[ro]9 (Tu/x/SouXtou* eVeJ ot)// ot S^aTrpalf^aj^ez^oi ravra efyalvovro 
rT/9 x L P^ crr V^ tca[Ta<T]Td<r<o$ \ [fca]l Tapanis fca[racrfCVTjv] 

j^ ou /xo|[7^oi/ 7p] TTJS 7rp[6? 
fcal xpe[a)fco7rias oi\\tcela], ciXXa 15 
teal [r]f;9 a7ro8e8o/xei>?;9 /carri [/cjon'o?^ TOt9 f/ EXX[77(rtz' e]|Xei>#epu*9 
d\\6rpia fcal r/}[9] /;/ieTt 1 [pa]9 7rpocupeWa)9, 7[a), ^a]|pao-^o- 
ptvtov TWV tcanjyupwv d\jj divas diTo^ei^^, ^o5|cro^ /ieV, TOI/ 
yeyovora dpxijyov [r]r?)r Trpa^^errcoi/ /ecu ro|/xo7pa^>?;(rai/Ta eVi 
Kara\vo-i rr)9 drro^oOdcn]^ 7ro\iTi\\[a^, Kpivas evo-^ov elvai 20 
davdrcoi Trap e^aip/ era, 0/10(0)9 St /ca! | [^op 
TWI^ ^cifjuopyMv rov av/JLTrpd^avra \ [roiv] t>7rp>;Va<ri ra 
/cat ra S^oata 7pa/i/Ltara, eVel /cai | [auro9] 
LI/JLOUCOV Se Ni/cta ro/x /x^ra TOI) iwo'ou | [7t'7oro]ra 
7Ti eXaaaov *<f>aii'To i}&ifcrjtca)<;,\\[fC\v<Ta] Trpodyeivei^Pcoujjv, 25 
optcicra? efi [co]t T?}t vov^viai rov eV 

/cat fi<^avi(ra^ T[WI, eV]t rail/ %v<ov (TTparij^ycoi, 0770)]^ a 
Trjporepor 7r[i/]i(j[i' 6t]9 olicov, ed[i> JJL]}) av. . 

From Dymae. Shortly after the destruction of Corinth by 
Mummius the Romans restc^red to the Greek cities their ancient 

[ 261 ] 


assemblies (Pausanias, 7. 16. 10), but apparently with a constitution 
modelled on oligarchical lines (11. qff.}- ^ n Dymae there was a 
party led by Sosus which attempted a revolution. The public records 
were destroyed by fire, and the revolutionary party enacted laws 
contrary to the spirit of the constitution proposed by Rome. The 
pro-Roman party appealed to Fabius who restored them to power 
and condemned Sosus to death together with Phormiscus who was 
one of the magistrates associated with the conspirators. Timotheus, 
another conspirator, was banished to Rome. This document is 
important evidence for the influence of Rome in shaping the 
constitutions of the Greek cities along oligarchical lines. 

(117 a. Chr.) 

C1L. i 1 , 199 = v, 7749; Dessau, 5946; Bruns, 184. 

Q. M. Minucieis Q. f. Rufeis de controvorsieis inter | Genuateis 
et Veiturios in re praesente cognoverunt, et coram inter eos con- 
trovosias composeiverunt, | et qua lege agrum possiderent et qua 
fineis fierent dixserunt. Eos fineis facere terminosque statui iuse- 
runt; | ubei ea facta essent, Romam coram venire iouserunt. Romae 
5 coram sententiam ex senati consulto dixerunt eidib. || Decemb. L. 
Caecilio Q. f. Q. Muucio Q. f. cos. Qua ager privatus casteli 
Vituriorum est, quern agrum eos vendere heredemque | sequi licet, 
is ager vectigal. nei siet. Langatium fineis agri privati. Ab rivo 
infimo, qui oritur ab fontei in Mannicelo ad flovium | Edem; ibi 
terminus stat. Inde flovio suso vorsum in flovium Lemurim. Inde 

flovio Lemuri susum usque ad rivom Comberane Agri 

poplici quod Langenses posident, hisce finis videntur esse. Ubi 
comfluont | Edus et Procobera, ibei terminus stat. Inde Ede flovio 

15 sursuorsum in montem Lemurino infumo; ibei terminus || stat. 
Inde sursumvorsum iugo recto monte Lemurino; ibei terminus 

stat Quern agrum poplicum | iudicamus esse, eum agrum 

castelanos Langenses Veiturios poj/dere fruique videtur oportere. 

25 Pro eo agro vectigal Langenses || Veituris in poplicum Genuam 
dent in anos singulos vic(toriatos) n(ummos) cccc. Sei Langenses 



earn pequniam non dabunt neque satis | facient arbitratuu Genua- 
tium, quod per Genuenses mora non fiat, quo setius earn pequniam 
acipiant: turn quod in eo agro | natum erit frumenti partem vicen- 
sumam, vini partem sextam Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare 
debento | in annos singolos. Quei intra eos fineis agrum posedet 
Genuas aut Viturius, quei eorum posedeit k. Sextil. L. Caicilio | 
Q. Muucio cos., eos ita posidere colereque liceat. E/s, quei poside- 
bunt, vectigal Langensibus pro portione dent ita uti ceteri || Lan- 3 
genses, qui eorum in eo agro agrum posidebunt fruenturque. Praeter 
ea in eo agro niquis posideto nisi de maiore parte | Langensium 
Veituriorum sententia, dum ne alium intro mitat nisi Genuatem 
aut Veiturium colendi causa. Quei eorum | de maiore parte Langen- 
sium Veiturium sententia ita non parebit, is eum agrum nei habeto 
nive fruimino. Quei | ager compascuos erit, in eo agro quo minus 
pecus />ascere Genuates Veituriosque liceat ita utei in cetero agro | 
Genuati compascuo, niquis prohibeto, nive quis vim facito, neive 
prohibeto quo minus ex eo agro ligna materiamque || sumant 35 
utanturque. Vectigal anni primi k. lanuaris secundis Veturis 
Langenses in poplicum Genuam dare | debento. Quod ante k. 
lanuar. primas Langenses fructi sunt eruntque, vectigal invitei dare 
nei debento. | Prata quae fuerunt proxuma facnisicei L. Caecilio 
Q. Muucio cos. in agro poplico, quern Vituries Langenses | posident 
et quern Odiates et quern Dectunines et quem Cavaturineis et quem 
Mentovines posident, ea prata, | invitis Langensibus et Odiatibus 
et Dectuninebus et Cavaturines et Mentovines, quem quisque eorum 
agrum || posidebit, inviteis eis niquis sicet nive pascat nive fruatur. 40 
Sei Langueses aut Odiates aut Dectunines aut Cavaturines | aut 
Mentovines malent in eo agro alia prata inmittere defendere sicare, 
id uti facere liceat, dum ne ampliorem | modum pratorum habeant, 
quam proxuma aestate habuerunt fructique sunt. Vituries quei 
controvorsias | Genuensium ob iniourias iudicati aut damnati sunt, 
sei quis in vinculeis ob eas res est, eos omneis | solvei mittei lei- 
ber#rm]ue a Genuens/^wj videtur oportere ante eidus Sextilis 
primas. Seiquoi de ea re || iniquom videbitur esse, ad nos adeant 45 
primo quoque die et ab omnibus controversis et hono publ. li. | Leg. 
Moco Meticanio Meticoni f., Plaucus Peliani. Pelioni f. 

1. 45. et hono publ. li; something like abstineant required. 

[ 263 ] 


Bronze tablet found in 1506, near Genua, now in Genoa. Most 
of those parts of the inscription which describe the boundaries of 
the ager prtvatus (11. 812) and the ager publtcus (11. 1423) of the 
Langenses are omitted here. The document is dated in 1. 5. It 
contains the settlement of a controversy between the civitasfoederata 
of Genua and the neighboring tribe of the Viturii or Langenses 
and certain other tribes (1. 38). So far as the relations of the munici- 
palities to the central government are concerned, its interest for us 
lies in the fact that it gives us the fullest account which we have in 
the republican period of the part which Rome played as arbitrator 
between dependent communities, and that it discloses the control 
which a civitas had over its attrtbuti. The Viturii and the other 
tribes mentioned in 1. 38 were attributi of Genua (cf. Mommsen, 
St. R. 3, 765^; cf. pp. I38/., and commentary on no. 49). It is 
clear that the Viturii had some form of local government, because 
they were able to receive rental from those who occupied certain 
lands (11. 2930), and to decide certain questions de maiore parte 
L. V. sententia (11. 3031, 32). They were, however, not autono- 
mous. The questions at issue between them and Genua have been 
heard by the local magistrates of Genua (11. 4344). So far as private 
rights go, the citizens may own land (cf. 11. 56), but, if they occupy 
any of the ager publicus of Genua, they must pay an annual tax to 
Genua in money or in kind (11. 2428). 

The magistrates of Genua had proceeded to hear the cases which 
had arisen (11. 4344), but the Viturii appealed to the Roman senate. 
Such an appeal was quite in accordance with the Roman theory of 
her relation to all civitates in her confines. They were under her 
hegemony, and consequently their dealings with one another and 
with independent states, and their relations to communities sub- 
ordinate to them, were regulated by her. As she expressed it in 
certain treaties (cf. Cic. pro Balbo^ 3537), the allied cities were 
required maiestatem populi Romani comiter conservare. 

The senate in this case appointed two of its members, the Minucii, 
as arbitrators. They were descendants of Q. Minucius Rufus, who 
conquered the Ligurians in 197 B.C. (cf. Ljvy, 32. 27-31; Cic. 
Brut. 73), and were probably patrons of Genua. They proceeded 
to the locality concerned (cf. 1. 2), investigated the matter, made 

[ 264 ] 


certain rulings, set up boundary stones, ordered local deputies to 
come to Rome (cf. 11. 4, 46), and reported to the senate. Their 
decision is: (i) that the Viturii may own certain ager privatus which 
shall be free from taxes (11. 5-6) ; (2) that for the ager publicus of 
Genua which they occupy, they shall pay an annual vecttgal to 
Genua (11. 24-32); (3) that the common pasture land may be used 
by any German or Viturian (11. 33-34); (4) that the meadows in 
this public land are reserved for the Viturii (11. 37-42); (5) that the 
Viturii who have been imprisoned by the Genuan magistrates shall 
be set free (11. 43-44), and (6) that later grievances are to be referred 
to Rome (1. 45). For arbitration under Rome, cf. pp. 152^., and 
nos. 8, 57, go, etc. 


(i 50-100 a. Chr.) 

Brims, 8; Girard, p. 26; Riccobono, p. 130; Buck, Oscan (2nd 
l^mhrian Grammar, p. 230; v. Planta, Gramm. d. osk.-umbr. Dial. 
2, 5995 Con way, Rxempla Selecta, 2. 

Chap, i is .... si ... quaestor multam propositerit 

iurabit imximae partis scnatus sententia dummodo 

non minus XL adsint, cum ea res comulta erit. Siquis peremerit, 
prius quam percmerit, iurato sciens in comitio sine dolo malo, se ea 
comitia magis rei publicae causa quam cuiuspiam gratiac aut inimi- 
citiae causa, idque se de scnatus sententia maximae partis perimere. 
Cui sic comitia perimet quisquam, is co die comitia ne habuerit. 

Chap. 2. Quis quandoque post hac comitia, habebit magistratus 
dc capite vel in pecunias, facito ut populus iurati scntentiam dicant, 
se de iis id sententiae dice re, quod optimum publicum censeat esse, 
neve fecerit quo quis de ea re minus iuret dolo malo. Siquis contra 
hoc fecerit aut comitia habuerit, multa tanta esto: n. AIM. Et 
siquis eum potius magistratus multare volet, dumtaxat minoris partis 
pecuniae multae multare liceto. 

Chap. 3. Siquis pro magistratu alteri capitis aut pecuniae diem 
dixerit, is comitia ne habuerit nisi cum apud populum quater ora- 
verit sciens sine dolo malo ct quartum diem populus perceperit. 
Quater, neque plus quinquiens, cum reo agito prius quam iudica- 

[ 265 ] 


tionem dabit, et cum postremum cum reo oraverit, ab eo die in 
diebus xxx proximis comitia ne habuerit. Siquis contra hoc fecerit, 
eum siquis volet magistrates multare, liceto, dumtaxatminoris partis 
pecuniae liceto. 

Chap. 4. Cum censores Bantiae populum censebunt, qui civis 
Bantinus erit, censetor ipse et pecuniam qua lege ii censores cense re 
proposuerint. At siquis in censum non venerit dolo malo, et eius 
convincitur, ipse in comitio caedatur praetoris magistratu, populo 
praesente sine dolo malo, et immercato cetera familia et pecunia 
omnino quae eius erit, quae incensa erit, publica esto. 

Chap. 5. Praetor, sive praefectus post hac Bantiae erit, siquis 
apud eos cum altero lege agere volet, aut pro iudicato manum ad- 
serere de eis rebus quae hisce in legibus scriptae sunt, ne quern 
prohibuerit plus diebus x proximis. Siquis contra hoc prohibuerit, 
multa tanta esto: n.M. Et siquis eum magistratus multare volet, 
liceto, dumtaxat minoris partis pecuniae multae multare liceto. 

Chap. 6. Praetor censor Bantiae ne quis fuerit, nisi quaestor 
fuerit, neve censor fuerit nisi praetor fuerit. Et siquis praetor et 

siqui: censor. . . .q virum fuerit, is post ea tr. pi. ne fuerit. 

Siquis contra hoc tr. pi. factus erit, is improbe factus esto. Id magis- 

terium eo quandoque Bantiae magisterium an- 

norum vi proximorum. . . .quod. . . .magisterium. 

A bronze tablet, about 15 by 10 inches, found in 1790 at Bantia, 
near the borders of Lucania and Apulia, now in the museum at 
Naples. On one side it has an Oscan inscription, written in Latin 
letters, and reproduced here in the Latin translation made by 
Buecheler, as modified by Buck. On the other side is a Latin 
inscription, of a somewhat later date, with which we are not con- 
cerned here. The Oscan inscription was in two columns, of which 
the right-hand column has been lost. Of the extant left-hand 
column, the upper and lower parts are broken. Six chapters, which 
represent about one-sixth of the original law, are preserved. The 
inscription contains a series of municipal regulations for the federated 
town of Bantia. This municipal charter was either granted to Bamia 
by Roman commissioners, and is, therefore, a lex data^ or more 
probably, as Mommsen (St. R. 3, 701) and Girard think, was 
adopted by the local assembly. Its primary interest for us lies in 

[ 266 ] 


the fact that it is a fragment of the earliest extant municipal charter. 
It is also important, because it illustrates the policy of Rome in 
the second century B.C. of entering into relations with individual 
cities, rather than with tribes or large sections of country. It is also 
important as illustrating for the early period the blending of Roman 
institutions with local autonomy and traditional titles and practices. 
The law prescribes the presence of a quorum in the local senate 
when certain action is taken. It defines the functions and procedure 
of the local assembly in hearing criminal cases. It lays down certain 
provisions concerning the census, describes the jurisdiction of the 
praetor, and establishes a cursus honorum. The characteristics of 
autonomy which we notice in this law are the regularly ordered 
magistracies, senate, and popular assembly, the taking of the census 
by the local authorities, the holding of court and the imposition of 
fines by the praetor of Bantia, and the exercise of criminal juris- 
diction by the popular assembly. No mention is made of the 
exemption, even of Romans or Italians, from the jurisdiction of 
this popular court, although in most treaties probably Rome stipu- 
lated that they should not be tried by the local court (cf. Mommsen, 
St. R. 3, 702). The specification of a senatorial quorum for the 
transaction of certain business is characteristic of Roman practice 
and is found in later municipal charters. The right of intercessio 
is exercised at Bantia, as well as at Rome, but in the former city it 
may be used to prevent a meeting of the assembly only on the 
approval of the senate, and on the taking of an oath by the official 
exercising it; cf. the oath taken by Ti. Gracchus (Aul. Cell. 6. 19). 
The procedure of the assembly when sitting as a high court was, 
except for small details, identical with that at Rome (cf. Cic. de 
domo sua y 45; Livy, 26. 3). The census followed the same course 
at Bantia as at Rome, except that in Bantia the penalty for non- 
appearance was lighter. A still more striking instance of the 
adoption of a Roman institution occurs in the last paragraph which 
fixes legally the cursus honorum. In this matter the people of Bantia 
have outdone the Romans who had arrived indirectly at the same 
end by prescribing in the lex Villia annalis the minimum ages at 
which the several offices should be held (Livy, 40. 44. i). Inci- 
dentally this fact shows that our law is later than 180 B.C.' It is 


surprising to find that one of the municipal magistrates is a tribune 
(cf. last paragraph), but parallels are found at Nuceria (Dessau, 
6445 *)> and Teanum Sidicinum (ibid. 6298). For recent literature 
on this law, see Bruns and Girard. 

(in. saec. I a. Chr.) 

E.E. 4, 21 3/.; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 15. 

.... [orrp]ar\_7jj~\ov \ [TT/OO iifjiepwv rpi]wv xdXavSwv \ [<t>e/3/ooa- 

5 pi(0v(?) ev] /co/meria) yu,era \ [arv/ji/3ov\iov ^TreyvwrcoTa S6\\[jfjiaTi 

<rvjfc\ij]Tov Trepl %wpa9, J?|[Ti9 eV avri]\oyia earlv 877^00-600- j 

\yai$ 7rpo<;~] Hep^a^vov^^ ev rcot \ [(rv/jL/3ov\]ia) Traprjcrav 

(sequuntur nomina). 

The date of this decree of the senate cannot be determined with 
accuracy. Willems (Le senat de la republlque rom. I, 693 jf!) has 
dated it ca. 98-946.0. The dispute between the pub/icani and the city 
of Pergamum was referred to the senate. Nothing is known about 
the nature of the dispute, but it is probable that the tax-collectors 
attempted to bring the temple-lands under their jurisdiction as at 
Ilium and Oropus (nos. 14, 18). If, however, Pergamum still 
enjoyed the privileges which were conferred upon it by the testa- 
ment of Attalus, the dispute may be over lands claimed by the city 
and therefore exempt from tribute. 


(90 a. Chr.) 

CIL. i 2 , 709; Bull. arch. com. 38(1910), 275; An. ep. 1911, 
no. 126; Girard, p. 61; Dessau, 8888. 

Cn. Pompeius Sex./, imperator virtu tis caussa | equites Hispanos 
ceives Romanos fecit in castreis apud Asculum a. d. xiv k. Dec. | ex 
lege lulia. In consillofuerunt: \ 

L. Gellius L. f. Tro. Cn. Octavius Q. f. 

(et alia nomina quinquaginta septeni) 


Sanibelser Adingibas f. 
(et alia nomina viginti noverri) 



Cn. Pompeius Sex. f. imperator | virtutis caussa turmam | 
Salluitanam donavit in | castreis apud Asculum | cornuculo et 
patella, torque, | armilla, palereis; et frumenAim | duplex. 

A bronze plate, which, with some fragments missing, was first 
published in the Bull, arch. com. 36 (1908), 169^. Later a small 
but important fragment was found, and the inscription was brought 
out in its present form in the Bull. arch. com. 38 (1910), 273280. 
The decree was issued in the camp at Asculum, but this copy of it 
was kept on the Capitol in Rome. It has been much discussed, both 
before and after the discovery of the new fragment; cf. e.g. y An. ep. 
1^909, no. 30; 1910, pp. 30, 38, 41, 55; 1911, pp. 29-30; Pais, 
Studi storici, 2, 113162; Rendlconti della r. accad. dei Lincei, 
Ser. v, 19 (1910), 7287 ; de Sanctis, Atti della r. accad. delle science 
di Torino, 45 (1910), 144^".; V. Costa, Rend, della r. accad. delle 
science deW instit. di Bologna -, 2 (1908-1909), 37-40; ibid. 4 (1910- 
!9 T i), 44-49; Girard, op. cit.\ Stevenson, Journ. Rom. Studies, 
9 (1919), 95101. It confers Roman citizenship and other rewards, 
mentioned in the last paragraph, on certain persons. The first grant, 
that of Roman citizenship, is made with the approval of the con- 
siltum, which was composed ordinarily of the military tribunes and 
the chief centurion of each legion. The names of the members of 
the consilium, sixty in all, are given in the early part of the in- 
scription. L. Caesar, after his great victory over the Samnites and 
Lucanians, and sometime in 90 B.C., secured the passage of a law 
which granted citizenship to the allies and Latins; cf. Rotondi, 
Leges publicae populi Romani, 339. Probably the same law also 
authorized the grant of citizenship to provincial auxiliaries of 
federated and stipendiary cities, who had contributed by their valor 
to Roman success. The grant of these rights to provincials at such 
an early date is surprising. It seems to indicate an unusually liberal 
attitude on the part of Strabo. The award in this case was made by 
him after the battle near Firmum (cf. Appian, B.C. I. 6. 47; Livy, 
Ep. 74,76). The decree was drawn up in castreis apud Asculum, 
and no mention is made in it of the consulship which Strabo held 
in 89 B.C. It belongs therefore to 90 B.C., and it bears the date of 
Nov. i 7. For the arguments in favor of the date 89 B.C., cf. Dessau, 
loc. cit. and Stevenson, loc. cit. Perhaps similar rewards were given 

[ 269 ] 


to other Spanish squadrons and to auxiliary troops from other 
provinces and recorded elsewhere, but no other tablets of this sort 
have yet been found. It is the first example of a lex data issued by 
a general, based on a lex rogata^ cf. pp. 232 ff., and Girard, op. cit. 
At a later date Pompey the Great was authorized to confer Roman 
citizenship de consilii sententia singillatim (Cic. pro Balbo^ 8. 19), 
and under the empire the award was frequently made in military 
diplomas (cf. also no. 42). An interesting supplement and a parallel 
to Strabo's decree is furnished by a S.C. of 78 B.C. (Bruns, 41), 
which declared three Greek ship captains as amid populi Romani^ 
and granted them immunity and other privileges for the services 
which they had rendered to Rome in time of war. 


(89 a. Chr.) 
Ditt. Or. Gr. 440. 

C O Sijfio? | AV/CIOV '\ov\iov I KevicLov viov Kaicrapa, \ 
KOI a7roKaTa<TTr)\cravTa TVJV iepav \ 
*\id&i /cal ^\6/jLevov \ avrrjv e/c TT}? 
From Troy. Lucius Julius Caesar, as censor, restored the sacred 
lands of the city to the goddess Ilian Athena, and thus exempted 
them from the tribute collected by the publicani (cf. Strabo, p. 642). 
The city of Priene appealed to Rome ca. 100 B.C. for a remission 
of the tax on salt and of the rnio(Ti)vat, (Inschriften von Priene^ 
in). Cf. nos. 12, 1 8, and Rostowzew, Gesch. d. rom. Kol. 284 /. 

(8 1 a. Chr.) 

GIL. i, 587, 588, 589. 

. , . Populus Laodicensis af Lyco | populurn Romanum quei sibei | 

5 . . .salutei fuit; benifici ergo quae sibei | benigne fecit || 6 837/409 6 
. . . AaoSiicecov TGOV vrpo? | TOOL AVKCOI TOP SrjfAov TOV \ f Pcofiaict)v 
. . .ryeyovoTa eavTOoi \ crcoTrjpa teal euepyer^i/ | dperr)? eveicev /cal 

10 . . .evvolas \\ TT)? 

The dots at the left in (a) mark a break in the stone. 
[ 270 ] 



Populus Ephesiuj populum Romanum \ salutis ergo quod optinuit 
maiorum \ sovom leibertatem i . . . | legatei Heraclitus H . . .filius \\ 
Hermocrates Demetri fi/ius 5 

Communi restitute in maiorum leibertatem \ Roma lovei Capito- 
lino et poplo Romano virtutis \ benivolentiae benificique caussa 
erga Lucios ab commum | Au/ao)!/ TO K.OWQV KO^IKTCL^VOV TTJV 
Trdrpiov ^TjUfjiOKparlav rrjv 'Pw/JLrjv Ati' KaTreTcoXtou /cal root, \ 
Stj/jLcoi Tc5[t] 'P&paiwv aperf)? (Ive/cev KOI eui/ota? | /cal evepyevias 

T7/9 69 TO tCOLVOV TO Av/ci(0V. 

Three stone tablets found in Rome. Ephesus and the Commune 
Lyciae express their thanks to the Roman people for the gift of 
libertas, and Laodicea likewise shows its gratitude. The inscriptions 
probably belong to the year 81 B.C., when Sulla and Murena settled 
the affairs of Lycia (cf. Appian, Mithr. 61 ; Tac. Ann. 3. 62). It is 
probable, though not certain, that Rome recognized these cities 
as civitates liber ae (cf. Henze, De civitatibus liber is, 707 1 ; Momm- 
sen, St. R. 3, 670, n. 3; Marquardt, St. Perw. i, 337, n. 9). An 
inscription found at Tabae (no. 16), as interpreted by Mommsen 
(Hermes^ 26 (1891), 145-148 = Ges. Schr. 5, 514), throws a little 
light on some of Sulla's arrangements in Asia Minor (cf. nos. 17,1 9). 
For a summary of them, cf. Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d? Asie, 39. 
For Ephesus, cf. ibid. \ 16. The Commune Lyciae was one of the 
oldest leagues in the empire and in Strabo's time numbered twenty- 
three cities with the right of voting in the KOIVOV (cf. Marquardt, 
St. Verw. i, 376/.; Reid, Municipalities of the Roman Empire , 
. ; Guiraud, Les assemblies prov. 41). 


(82 a. Chr.) 
Ditt. Or. Gr. 442. 

[ ....... Tot? T6 /3a(Ti\ea)$ rjyefjLOcriv \ 8vvfifjL6(rii>] re 7rai>8po- 

Ta[Ta vTrep TMV TroXewz/ rrjs 'Ao*ta<? | teal T]?)? 'EXXaSo? aimre- 
rdx^dat,' apeaiceiv 6/j,oia)<; rrji, | avy^fcXrjrcoi KOI TOOL 8rfiJ,c0(, [rtov 
( Pa)/jiaia)v ravra Trdvra /caret Ta] || apiara elvai HaeaOal Te, 5 

t 271 ] 


re TTICTTH/ 7rpo9 rrjv avv\K\'r{\rov /cat rov 8f)/jiov 
TGTypy/Jievrjv del \ St,a fi^vrjfi'rjs e^euv %et,v re' o 
re Tiva<$ rr)v | TOV]TG>I/ dperfjs Kal KaraXoyfjs e[i/e/ee 

10 aTro] avv/3ov\iov 71^/1,779 Aev/cios [Kopvfaios \\ 2uXX]a9 avro- 
Kpdrtop o-vve^prjaev [7r]oX[e69 O7ra>9 | tSi]o69 ro?9 VO^OL^ 
aipe(Tcriv re wcrw \ [o7ro>]9 re %a)piov u^crcroz/, o eo-rw eVro9 
rdov [6|p/a>]i/ aurcoi/, az/ /9ouXa)^rat, o^upeoVcoow [T^I; | re cruji/- 

15 /c\r]Tov rov re SfjjJiov rov 'Pco/Jiaicov [8t,\\a\a]v/3dvetv ravra avTols 
/caXo)9 /ecu [7rpocrr)\/c6vT]a)$ KOI dicos avrwv SeSocrdai re. ... 

From Tabae. This city had remained loyal to the Romans during 
the invasion of Asia by Mithradates, and was rewarded by Sulla 
in a fashion similar to Stratonicea (cf. no. 17). It was given the 
revenues of certain towns and, as an ally of Rome, was permitted 
to use its own laws. Permission to fortify part of their territory 
was also granted (cf. no. 5, Viereck, Hermes^ 25 (1890), 624^"., 
Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 5. 51 4/0. 

(ca. 8 1 a. Chr.) 

Ditt. Or. Gr. 44 1, 11. 1129; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 16. 

[Ou/c dyvoov/jiev u//,a9] 8ia 7rpo\^^\6va)v iravra ra 8ifcai,a 

^ rrjv f}fjLeTpa]v ^yefj^ov^iav TreTroiTjfcora^ teal ev \\ [Trdvn Kcupu>i 

rrjv 7rp09 rj]/Jids TrL^ar^iv el\iicpivu><s TTr)pr)/c6ra<; \ [eV re ran 

7rpo9 MidpaSd^Trjv 7r[o]Xe/ia)6 Trpwrov? rcoz/ ev riji | ['Acr/at 

avriTerayfjievovs /ca]l Sia raOra tcivbvvovs 7roXXou9 | [re /cal 

TravToSaTTovs^ vjrep rwv r)/jL6Tpa)v 

10 Trpodv/jLo^Tara dfy^a 

re | [/cal ^;aptT09, /cal eV root roi) 
o9 re I [ra9 aXXa9 


J3ov\?ii 8r)/J,oM %aipiv.~\ \ Hpecr/SeuTa^ vfJ\Tpoi<$ TO 
VTTO crvyfc\rjr]ov Soy/Aa \ rovro 


[ 272 ] 


<rv[v/3ov\ev<raro irpo 
ev T(3[(. tcofjbericoi' 7pa<o/iez;aH 7rapf)<rav 20 

Vat'ov [yib$ , F]ao9 | 3>ovSdvio$ 

Tat\ov wo9 irepl ojv l^rparovi/cefa etc Xpif|o-ao[pea>i/] | 

ILuco 1/409 f lp[otc\eov$, , 

], || f E/eaTa?09 Ha , , 25 

eiroirj^cravro \ <ru/>t[</l)ft)- 

teal dfco\ov0a)s root ^Tparovitciwv \frrj <f)i<rfjLaTi | df~iovvr<> 
eVt TOOL r]a brjiAoo'ia Trpa^\jLCUTa T]OV Brfpov \ [rov 
ev fteXriovi, tca^Tavrdaei, elvat,* \\ [oTrew? ^pvo'ovv 30 
Trapa rr)$ t]S/a9 7r6\ea><? rrjc < 
djro ra\dvT(ov $]iafco<rla)V y \ \QvGiav re e.v rait 

Troifjcrai %f)i VTTp TT)? i>[t'tf]?79 | [/cat rr)9 r)<yepovLa<; TOV 
roO] f Pa>/ia/ft)i/, | [o7T&)9 T TO \ot,7rbv AevfcicoL K.opwr)\ia)t, 

, 35 

rrjv I8iav \ [evvoidv 
re /cal TTL&TIV /cat </>tXtaz/j 77^09 TOI/ Sfjfjiov rov 'Pc^^aiayv \ [/cal 
7rpa>T09 ra>r eV r^^ 'Ao~ta^, ore Mi^p]a8ar7;9 eV aur[rjt | Seworara 
ervpdvvevev, TrpoeiXero dv]rt,rrd%0ai,* \\ [eVet Se o /SacrfcX6U9 eVt 40 

8' e#paT770-[e]i> 

Kopvrj\ia)(, Aevfciov vi&t, SuXXat] | Sifcrdropi eVtfra- 

| /c]al eVel o &f)po$ [avv- 

del rrjv vTrdp^ovaav avra>i\ \ evvoiav /cal 7rL{<mv\ fcal 
crv/jLfAa'%i[av 7rpo9 rov STJ/JLOV rov 'Pco/jLaitov, rd i]\8ia IT pay par a 
/c[ard r]rjv Trpoalpeaiv \rr)v etceivcov 8i06/c^0"a9, teal MidpaSdrrjt] \\ 

f^cre, tcd]l rbv ISiov 8^[Xa)<7a9 Ov/Jiov irpoQvfJLorara 45 
rfji /SaaiXifcrji, yQ[ofX7)]t teal 

re ic\al vonow ical 

9, 0^9 %pa)v\ro 7rdv]a) y 07ra>9 XpcSvrat,, ocra re 
eiroirjcrav TOU|TOU rov TrajXeyu-of eveicev, ov rrpos 
M.i0pa&drriv dve&eigav, || O7TG)9 rjaOra Trai^ra Kvpia dxTiV \ 50 
avrotcpdrcop | Ti79 roura)!/] dperrjs tcardXoyfjs re e^vetcev irpocr- 

, 07ra)9 rJaOra aurot? e^eti/ ef[^6* || TO 55 

AMA [ 273 ] 18 


iepbv r^9] f E/caT>79, 7ri<f>ave<TTd[Tr)$ /cal fjieyio-rrj? 0ea9, etc 
TroXJXoi) re Ti^pcb/jievov /cal TroXXa [ .............. . ........ | 

TO T T/tey]o9, O7Tft>9 TOVTO a,(TV\\OV VTTap^i, \ 7T6pt T6 Tft5l/ 

60 TOM a/)]%o^T[t T]G!H 6t9 'A(7i'az/ TTOpevo/Jievwi eWoXa9 || &&H, u/a 

ra e/ji<pavf) | avrols 
djro&odrjvat, fypovricriqi, rov<$ re ai%fjLa\toTOv$ 

T TCOI/ [XjotTTCOZ/ tl/a TU%0)CTfc TCOl/ SlfCaitoV | 07T&)9 T6 

rat9 rot9 Trapa ^Tparovifcecov 6t9 'Pco/ji'rjv | 7rapecro/x,ez 

65 rot) crrfyov ol dp%ovT$ <rvytc\'rjTov St8c5cr[fc^*] || Tre/n TOUTOU roO 

TTpdy/juaTOs ourft)9 eSo^e^' TrpecrfievTais | ^rparovi/cewv Kara 

TrpocrcoTTov ev Trji avy/cXiJTcoi, (f>i\,av0p(o\ f jra)$ dTrofcpidrjvai, %d 

<pt,\iav av/jL/Jia^iav dvaveaxracrOat,, | roiW Trp 

tca\ov<; /cal dyaffovs teal <f>i\ovs | crv/JL/jid^ov^ re 

70 Trapd Srf/Jiov /ca\ov fcal dyaOov || /cat <pi\ov au^^dyou [re ?7/ 

re c5j> OVTOC ol 

fcal 7rep\l <lv] | Aevfcio? Kopz/?; 
Sifcrdrcop \6yo[v$ j eTro^^craro, yvwarov elvai 
? | ?rap]a roi>^ 'Acr/az^ r?/^ re 

75 'EXXaSa [8ta/caTao"^oz/TG>^ rwz^ re eV || raura]^ 
7Tpeo'ftv\T')v yeyevrjiJizvtov 7rtcrToXa9 | TOL/9] 
re $i\lav /c[al irlcmv teal evvoiav ?rpo9 roz/ | S^J 
Sta reXou9 [ei/ icaip&i elprfwr)? TroXe/xof [ re] (a)el (rvvrerriprj/cevai 
(7TpaT6co[Tat9 T6 /cal en'ran /cal jAeydXai? j Sa7ra^]at9 ra 
80 TTpdyfjiara [roO 8^/xou roO 'Pca/^ata);^ || Trpo^dv/Jborara V 
/cevai TT ..................... | . . t>9 LfTre 

eavrwv avrols a-v^7re\ r Tro\\efJir)K.ivai ro?9 re /3acrtXeft)[9 
rjye/jLOcrw | Suz^Ja/iecrtr re eTravSporara 7re[pl reoi/ 
85 7r6Xea>i> T?)9 'A(7/a9 /cal | r^9J f EXXaSo9 a[z^]rtTTa^^a6 || [vrepl 
TOUTCOZ/ TWI^ TTpayfJidrcov o{/ra)9 e'8oej>* dpecr/cLv rffi <r v y \K\VJT ay t, 
dvSp&v dyaOwv] Si/catcov [re a7ro]/>ti/7;/i[oz/eue6Z/ ^cal Trpoji/oeu/ 

roz/ di/]TATayu<ta^ ewa avroi? fcard TO 8tdra[y/jia Sov\vai, /c 

90 069] T6 VQILOIS 0L(TIJLQl<S T6 

rovrov rov \7To\e\iJiov eveicev rov ?rp]o9 M^^pa^ar?;^ yevopevov, 
f iva Touro[/9 ravra | iravra fcvpta vTrdpfyayaiv a9 re 


rovrcov dperr)[$ fcara\o\<yfi$ re evetcev /zerja av^^ovkiov 

Aeimo9 2uX[Xa9 av\\rofcpdra)p ro?9 aujrofc Trpocroopio-ev aw- 95 

, Iva ravra \ avroi? eyjziv e^iji' ro\v re brj/Aov rov f Pa>- 

re avr[ov .......................... | ...... ] ra re Srpa- 

rovifcevcriv [e'tyrjtyicrfJieva ..................... || ....... ] 100 

i,,a<; avro? 
avro/cprcop ^rparoviKevcnv 7ro\i\reLa^ \ /c]co/ta9 

re TrpocrwpKrev, eTriyvwi biard^rj^i, ocra9 fcd<TTrj] | Tr 

re Stara^T/t, 7rp09 Tai;Ta9 IO 5 

tX^fc, ti/a TOCTOUTOI/ rfeXo?] | ^TparoviKV(TLv 
[rjoOro T6, oiT^i/69 ai/ Trore ael ^Acrtaz^ T?;I> re f EXXaSa 

axriv StSwcrtV re tpyaaiav, f lv\a 
t. | To [tp]o^ r?)9 f E[/caT?;9] 07r&>9 ^[^ acrvKov 
dvdvTraro? ocms av del 'Aaiav eVfap^eta^] | S^a/ 
<yva)TO) ariva avrois a[7r6]crrt^ | oT re Tt^e9 raOra SitjpTra&av 01 
re Tiz^e[9 8]^a/caTe||%ofcrti/ aura, iW Trap' avr&v dTroBodfjvai 
ovricrrji' f iva re rovs al^^a\corov^ \ dva- 
vrrep re rwv Xfoj^Trcoz/ | Trpaypdrtov rwv 
o[ii]r[o) /ca]#a)9 a^ | aurot9 e/c rail' &rj /JLOCT icov 


7rpayfjidr[a)v Tricr^rews \\ re rfjs 

re rov irapa rov Srjfjiov \ [T?^ <TU7AcX^ra)6] dTrecrraX- 
az/ Aev/cio? [Kopi/?;X]to9 | SuXXa9 'ETrac^poS^ro? 

]>/Ta [a7a^oi^ OTTW? dvadelvai avrols \\ e%i]i, 125 
6vcriav re ev rait KaTrertoX/co^ az^ $e|Xa)<Jtz; OTTCOS avrols 
re Trpeafievrai? trapa ^>v el? \ 
eSo!*e (r]v<yK\'r)rov \ [L>7ro rcoz/ dp%ovra)v e/cros rov 

From Lagina. The city of Stratonicca had remained loyal to 
the Romans in the struggle with Mithradates. This decree of the 
senate confirms the action taken by the dictator Sulla in regard to 
the city. The alliance with Rome is renewed. The citizens are 
allowed to keep their own laws and customs. Their legislation 
during the invasion of Mithradates is confirmed. Sulla is authorized 

[ 275 ] 18-2 


to determine the amount of tribute which should be paid to the 
city by the towns and villages which he has assigned to Stratonicea. 
The shrine of Hecate is granted the privilege of asylum (Tac. 
Ann. 3. 62). Cf. nos. 15, 16, 67. 


(73 a. Chr.) 

Viereck, Sermo Graecus y 1 8; IG. vn, 413; de Ruggiero, U arbi- 
trate pubblico, 25; Bruns, 42; Ditt. Syll? 747; Riccobono, p. 209. 

Te/oeWto9 Madptcov vlb? Ovdppwv 
Aevtci[ov iuo9 | A.oyjywo$ virarot, 
@ov\fj ST^GH yaipziv. Et epptoo-^e, ev av e 
| f T/ia9 elSevat, /3ov\6/A0a, ?7/ia9 Kara TO rr)9 crvv/c\iJTov 
TO <yv6fivov e\7rl Aev/ci~\\ov Ai/civlov M.adp/cov 
5 vTrdrav tTreyvcofcevai, irepl dvriXoyi&v r&v ai/a/ifea-oi/j 
*A/j,(f)iapd(t)t, teal T&V SrjfjLoa-iwvtov yeyovoT&v (eTreyvay/cevai). 

Hpo flea? e^[Su(Sz/] | 'QKTwpPpicov ep /3acrt,\i/cf] Hop/cia ev 

Auclvios Tatov vlb? \ Hco/jbevriva, Fao9 At/civic? Tatov vios 
10 2T7yXaT^a(9) 2a^6/o8tov, || AeuACto9 OuoXu<r/cto9 Aevtciov 
9, Aev/cio? Adpnos AVKLGV vlbs \ 
Yatov vibs KXt 

pft>^, KoiVTO9"A^o9 Maa/cou 1/609 
^i'o? KoiVJTou 1/609 ' 
AuXou WO9 6 

Koifi/TOi; utO9 T-^piji/Ttz/a p/Lto9, Maap/f09 IIo7rXt/cf09 || Maap/cou 
u/09 'Oparla ^/cacovas, TtVo9 Matiuo9 T/TOV u/ 


<rriv, /cat 

20 ee e TO> T9 /uo-a>0-eG>9 ^o/i^> avrai at 


elaiv), ravras re ra$ 7T/oocr|oSou9, vrepl MV ayerac TO 
Aeu/cto9 2uXXa9 TOH 6ewi 'A//,<mpaaH irp(o)<rc0ipt,\<Tev(l), 



Aeu/ao9 Ao/x-erto? Atz/o/SaXySo? i/7rp 

eirel ev ran rr)9 /ato-^eocreci)? i/o/>tcat avrat, al %c3pat 
ei<riv, \ 

v, ovre o 

- 25 

avrac a 



<TW/3ov\iov yvw/jirj? yvw/juiv a7T^>7;i/a||/z6^a* o eireyvw/Jiev 30 
crvvK\rfTa)i, TrpocravoLcrQiJiev, rovro o /cat \ 69 T^I 

i^ rc r>9 
o{/ra)9' | /cro9 T6 rovrcov fj ei 

7Tp %0>pa9 ftpft)7Tta9, 7T6/36 9 aVTi\O<ya T)V 

Srj/jLocriwvas, Kara rbv rr)9 | jjUcrOaMTew vofiov avrij 
p7j/jivrj ecrriv, 'iva /JLTJ 6 Srj/j,oa't,(t)\ 1/779 avrrjv /capTri^rjrai' 
Kara TO r?}9 avvK\r\rov S6y/j,a efreyvay^ev. \\ 

VO/JLW vTre^etpTjfjLevrjv Sofcel elvai A 35 

oy/na <rvvK\r)rov, avro- 
/cpdrcop avro/cpdropes r[6J | rj/jierep 
vdrw iep&v repev&v re <f>v\afcfj$ 
/care\t,7rov, e/cro? re TOUTCOI/, a 
avroKpdrcop drro Gvvftov\lov 
iepwv rejuievtov re </>iAa/c?}9 ev 
TO avTo r; <rvvtc\rjros e 
<TWK\tjrov aKvpov eyevijOrj. 

ris 0ed)V ada- 

|| ddavdrwv 40 

SwiceVy \ o 
/i6Ta TauTa 86y/j,ari 


evetcev r)t epy 
Travry irdvrodev ?r6Sa9 





7rpO(r6Soi/9 tt7racra9 e/9 TOU9 dywva? /cal ra$ 


[ 277 ] 


av fJLerd ravra vrrep rijs | VIK,^ KOI rr)$ rjye/Aovia? rov 

50 Srjfjiov rov 'Pco/jiaicov <rvvTe\eaov(TLV, \\ eVro9 dypcov rwv 

*E*plJ,o&(iopov'Q\vv7rL')(ov vlov, iepea)? 'A/i(mpaou, rov \ Sea 

TeXou9 eV rfj <f)i\ia rov SIJ/AOV rov 'Pwp.aiw 

Ilepl rov\rov rov Trpdy/jLaros Soyfia crvvK\r)rov eVt 

Sofcel elvai, \ ovrep rj <rvvK\riTo<; eSoy/jLano-ev 6/9 


55 ocra re ffecot, \\ 'A/z0^apao)6 KOI ran tepaj avrov Aevteio? 

Xa9 7ro o"v(jji)f3ov\iov \ 71/^779 7rpo<roopio-v 
yTa avra r) <TVVK\r)TO<$ rovrcoi rcvi Oe&i, \ SoOrjvat, 

'Ev ran o-viiftovXiuH, iraprjarav \ ol avrol 01 /JL 7rpa<y/jiaTa)v 
<rv/Jb/3/3ov\VfjLva)v SeXrcoi, Trpwr^i, \ /cijp (opart, recraapecricai- 

60 Ao7/ia o~vvfc\tjrov rovro yevojAevov \\ eariv rrpo 
BefcacTrra /ca\avS(v Noev/3pia)v ev /co/jLe 
Traprjcrav Ttro9 Maivtos Tirov vib$ Ae/jicovia, \ KoiVro9 'Pay/ceo? 
KoiWou uto9 KXawSta, Tdios QvcreXXios Ta'lov \ i/i09 Kvpiva 
rrepl <&v Maapo9 Aev/co\\o^ } Fcu'o9 KaVto9 | vrraroi 

yei\av rrspl 'Hpw7rta9 ^cop 
eavrovs eTreyvwfcevat, d>o~avro)<; rrjv 

So/clv elvai, /card rov rfjs /jLHrOobaea)? v6p,ov, \ pr) 
So/celv TOU9 Srj/jioo'itovas ravra Kaprrl^ecrdat,* ouTa>9, | /cadcos av 
avrol? /c ra>v Brj/jioo'Layv Trpay/Jidrcov Trio-re^ re r^9 | i&ias 
<f>aivero, eo%ev. 

From Oropus. We have included in this collection only a few 
of the examples of arbitration in the cities under the jurisdiction 
of Rome (cf. no. 8). The citizens of Oropus had received from Sulla 
certain revenues from lands and customs to be devoted to the worship 
of the god Amphiaraus. The sources of this income could not be 
taxed by the publicani in collecting the tithes from the province. 
After the death of Sulla the publicani sought to collect the former 
tax from the Oropians, claiming that Amphiaraus was not a god, 
since he had once been a mortal (Cic. de deor. nat. 3. 49). Oropus 
protested their claim, sending an embassy to Rome. The senate 
referred the matter to the consuls for arbitration. They chose a 

[ 278 ] 


committee of fifteen senators who reviewed the evidence and decided 
in favor of Oropus. The document contains the letter of the consuls 
to the Oropians, the decision of the committee appointed to arbitrate 
the case, the record of Sulla's action, and the decree of the senate 
confirming it, and, finally, the decree of the senate confirming 
the decision of the court of arbitration. Cf. nos. 8, 46, 57, 104. 

(ca. 71 a. Chr.) 

CIL. i, 204; Bruns, 14; Dessau, 38; Girard, pp. 68-70; Ricco- 
bono, pp. 105107. 

C. Antonius M. f., On. Corne/ius. ./., Q. Marcius . ./., L. Hos- 
tilius../., C. Popilius. ./., M. Valerius . ./., C. Antius . ./., Q. 

Caecilius . ./., L. V /. , | C. Fundanius C. f. tr. pi. de s. s. 

plebem ioure rogaverunt | preimus scivit. | 

Quei Thcrmeses maiores Peisidae fuerunt, queique | eorum Col. i 
legibus Thermesium maior&m Pisidarum | ante k. April., quae 
fuerunt L. Gellio Cn. Lentulo cos., | Thermeses maiores Pisidae 
factei sunt, queique || ab ieis prognati sunt erunt, iei omnes | posterei- 5 
que eorum Thermeses maiores Peisidae | leiberei amicei socieique 
populi Romani sunto, | eique legibus sueis ita utunto, itaque ieis | 
omnibus sueis legibus Thermensis maioribus || Pisideis utei liceto, 10 
quod advorsus hanc legem | non fiat. | 

Quei agrei quae loco aedificia publica preivatave | Thermensium 
maiorum Pisidarum intra fineis | eorum sunt fueruntve L. Marcio 
Sex. lulio cos., || quaeque insulae eorum sunt fueruntve ieis | con- 15 
solibus, quei supra scriptei sunt, quodque | earum rerum ieis con- 
sulibus iei habuerunt | possederunt usei fructeique sunt, quae de ieis 
rebus | locata non unt y utei antea habeant possideant ; yuaeque || de 20 
ieis rebus agreis loceis aedificieis locata jnt, ac ne | locentur sancitum 
est sanctione, yuae facta | est ex \ege rogata L. Gellio Cn. Lentulo 
cos., e& omnia | Thermeses maiores Pisidae habeant possideant, | 
ieisque rebus loceis agreis aedificieis utantur fru&ntur \\ ita, utei ante 25 
Mitridatis bellum, quod preimum | fuit, habueruw/ possederunt i4sei 
fructeique sunt. | 

Quae Thermensorum maiorum Pisidarum publica | preivatave 

[ 279 ] 


praeter locata agros aedificia sunt | fueruntve ante bellum Mitri- 

30 datis, quod preimum || factum est, quodque earum rerum iei antea | 
habuerunt possederunt usei fructeive sunt, | quod eius ipsei sua 
voluntate ab se non abalienarunt, | ea omnia Termensium maiorum 
Pisidarum, utei sunt | fuerunt, ita sunto, itemque ieis ea omnia || 

35 habere possidere uutei frueique liceto. | 

Col. ii Quos Thermenses maiores Pisidae leiberos servosve | bello 

Mitridatis ameiserunt, magistratus prove \ magistratu, quoia de ea 

re iuris dictio erit, quoque \ de ea re in ious aditum erit, ita de ea re 

5 ious || deicunto iudicia recuperationes danto, utei iei eos recuperare 

possint. | 

Nei quis magistratus prove magistratu legatus ne*W | quis alius 
meilites in oppidum Thermesum maiorum | Pisidarum agrumve 
Thermensium maiorum | Pisidarum hiemandi caussa introducito, 

10 neive || facito, quo quis eo meilites introducat quove ibei | meilites 
hiement, nisei senatus nominatim, utei Thermesum | maiorum 
Pisidarum in hibernacula meilites | deducantur, decreverit; neive 
quis magistratus | prove magistratu legatus neive quis alius facito || 

15 neive inperato, quo quid magis iei dent praebeant | ab ieisve aufe- 

ratur, nisei quod eos ex lege Porcia | dare praebere oportet oportebit. | 

Quae leges quodque ious quaeque consuetudo L. Marcio | Sex. 

20 lulio cos. inter civeis Romanos et Termenses || maiores Pisidas 
fuit, eaedem leges eidemque ious | eademque consuetudo inter ceives 
Romanos et | Termenses maiores Pisidas esto; quodque quibusque | 
in rebus loceis agreis aedificieis oppideis iouris | Termensium maiorum 

25 Pisidarum ieis consulibus, || quei supra scriptei sunt, fuit, quod eius 
praeter | locata agros aedificia ipsei sua voluntate ab se non | ab- 
alienarunt, idem in eisdem rebus loceis agreis | aedificieis oppideis 
Teimensium maiorum Pisidarum | ious esto; et quo minus ea, quae 

30 in hoc capite scripta || sunt, ita sint fiant, eius hac lege nihilum 
rogatur. | 

Quam legem portorieis terrestribus maritumeisque | Termenses 
maiores Phisidae capiundeis intra suos | fineis deixserint, ea lex ieis 
portorieis capiundeis | esto, dum nei quid portori ab ieis capiatur, 

35 quei publica || populi Romani vectigalia redempta habebunt. Quos | 

per eorum fineis publicani ex eo vectigali transportabunt | 

(continuabatur in tabula deperdita}. 



Bronze tablet found in Rome in the sixteenth century, now in 
the museum at Naples. The inscription is engraved in two columns. 
The second column begins with the words Quos Thermenses. The 
heading, / de Termesi. Pisid. mai.^ shows that this is the first of 
several tablets which made up the original law. The Ambrosian 
Library at Milan has a copy of the first tablet, which purports to 
have been made by Mariangelus Accursius shortly after the dis- 
covery of the tablet. From this copy certain missing words have 
been supplied in the CIL.\ but Bormann (Festschrift Hirschfeld^ 
434 ./T.) has given reasons for believing that the tablet was defective 
when found, and that the added words are conjectures of Accursius. 
They are here printed in italics (col. i, 11. i8/). Thermeses maiores 
Peisidae (or Tepyu-T/o-crefc ol fjLeL%ove<$) distinguishes this town 
from Tepfjirjo-creis ol TT/OO? Oivodvbot?. Many other inscriptions 
have been found on its site; cf. *Jahreshefte d. bst. archaol. Inst. 
3 (1900), 196/0 B.C.H. 23 (1899), 165 /., 280 /.; 24 (1900), 

The praescriptio shows that the law is a plebiscite, submitted 
by C. Antonius, Cicero's colleague in 63 B.C., and certain other 
tribunes. The names of the other tribunes have been supplied from 
the list of the colleagues of Antonius given in CIL. i, 593. The 
presence of the phrase de senatus sententia in the praescriptio seems 
to fix the date of the plebiscite before 70 B.C., because the legislation 
of Sulla forbidding the tribunes to submit a measure to the popular 
assembly until the senate has taken action on it is apparently still 
in force. The document is subsequent to 72 B.C., the year of the 
consulship of Gellius and Lentulus, and probably falls in 71 B.C. 
Probably these privileges were granted to Termessus because of 
her loyalty in the Mithradatic wars. For other cities whose loyalty 
was rewarded in a similar way, cf. nos. 15, 1 6, 17, and 2 1 . By virtue 
of this law Termessus became a civitas sinefoedere immunis et liber a. 
For an analysis of the rights of such a city, cf. pp. 42/ and Momm- 
sen, St. R. 3, 686 /. 

The people of Termessus are styled leiberei amicei socieique populi 
Romani. They are given the right legibus sueis uti, the possession 
of their land without the payment of a stipendium, freedom from 
the billeting of troops, and payment for necessary requisitions made 

c 281 ] 


upon them. Their rights over against Roman citizens are guaranteed, 
and they may collect portoria terrestria maritumaque. Their right 
legibus suets uti (cf. no. 40) is however limited by the proviso, quod 
advorsus hanc legem non fiat y and the billeting of troops may be 
authorized by a special vote of the Roman senate. No mention is 
made of the rights of coinage or of receiving exiles. With regard 
to the property rights granted to the people of Termessus in 11. 27- 
35, cf. Bormann, op. cit. 439. 


(88-62 a. Chr.?) 

Dessau, 6086; Bruns, 27; Riccobono, p. 132; Girard, p. 61. 
. .ne esse liceat neive qu*V quod eius municipi pequniae publicae 
sacrae | religios<s>ae est erit fra^dato neive av^rtito neive facito quo 
eorum | quid fiat, neive per litferas publicas fraudemve publicum 
peius | facito d(olo) m(alo). Quei faxit, quant/ ea res erit quadruplum 

5 multae esto, || eamque pequniam mumcipio dare damnas esto eiusque 
pequniae | magistratus quei quomque in municipio erit petitio 
exactioque esto. | 

IIIIvir(ei)aedilesquequei h.l. primei eruntquei eorum Tarentum 
venerit, | is in diebus xx proxumeis quibus post h. 1. datam primum 
Tarentum venerit | facito quei pro se praes stat praedes praediaque 

10 ad niivir(os) det quod satis || sit, quae pequnia publics j<?cra religiosa 
eius municipi ad se in suo magistratu | pervenerit, earn pequniam 
municipio Tarentino salvam recte esse futunzm, | eiusque rei 
rationem m/diturum ita utei senatus censuerit. Isque imvir, [ 
quoi ita praes dabitur, acripito idque in tabu/m /mbliceis scriptum 
sit | facito. Quique quomque comitia duovireis a^ilibusve rogan- 

15 deis || habebit, is antequam maior pars curiarum quemque eorum 
quei | magistratum eis comitieis petent renuntiabit, ab eis quei petent 
praedes [ quod satis sit accipito, yuae pequnia publica sacra religiosa 
eius municipi | ^quemque eorum in eo magistratu pervenerit, earn 
pequniam municipio | Tarentino salvam recte essefuturzm, eiusque 

20 rei rationem redditurum || ita utei senatus cej#erit, /dque in taz//eis 
publiceis scriptum sit facito, | quodque quoique negoti publice in 
municipio de s(enatus) s(ententia) datum erit negotive | publicei 

c 282 ] 


gesserit pequnfamque publicam deder\\. exegerit, is quoi ita negotium | 
datum erit negotive quid publice gessenV pequniamve publicam 
dederit | exegerit, eius rei rationem senatui reddito refertoque in 
diebus x proxume/V || quibus senatus eius municipi censuent sine 25 
d(olo) m(alo). | 

Quei decurio municipi Tarentiei est erit queive in municipio 
Tarenti0 in \ senatu sententiam deixerit, is in o^ido Tarentei 
aut intra eius municipi \ fineis aedificium quod non minuj MD tegu- 
larum tectum sit habeto sine \ d(olo) m(alo). Quei eorum ita aedi- 
ficium suom non habebit seive quis eorum || aedificium emerit 30 
mancupiove acceperit quo hoic legi fraudem faxit y | is in annos 
singulos HS n. IDD municipio Tarentino dare damnas esto. | 

Nei quis in oppido quod eius municipi erit aedificium detegito 
neive dcmo/ito \ neive disturbato nisei quod non deterius restituturus 
erit nisei de s(enatus) s(ententia). | Sei quis adversus ea faxit, quant/ 
id aedificium feerit, tantam pequni^m || municipio dare damnas esto 35 
eiusque pequniae y#ei volet petitis est. | Magi (stratus) quei exegerit 
dimidium in /mblicum referto dimidium in tadeis quos | publice 
in eo magistratu facie/ consumito, seive ad monumentum suom | in 
publico consumere volet liceto^ idque ei s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) facere 
liceto. | 

Sei quas vias fossas cloacas imvir nvir aedilisve eius municipi 
caussa || publice facere immittere commutare aedificare munire 40 
volet, intra | eos fineis quei eius municipi erun/, quod eius sine 
iniuria fiat, id ei facere | liceto. | 

Quei pequniam municipio Tarentino non debebit sei quis eorum 
quei | municeps erit neque eo sexennio />roxumo, quo exeire volet, 

(reliqui versus, maxime muttlt, omissi suni) 

The charter of Tarentum was engraved on a brass tablet. Of the 
original, only a fragment of the ninth table, found in an ancient 
well, is now preserved in the museum of Naples. 

Tarentum was founded as a Roman colony by Gracchus in 
123 B.C. To this settlement the name Neptunia was given. After 
the Social war Tarentum obtained the civitas Romana and became 
a municipium. The date of this charter, which was a lex data y cannot 
be determined with exactness. It is not earlier than 89 B.C. and 


possibly should not be dated later than 62 B.C., when Cicero refers 
to Tarentum as a municipium (pro Archia, 5. 10). Yet Tarentum 
could be called a municipality at any time after the Social war, 
and the date of the speech for Archias is not necessarily a post quod 
non (cf. Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 104). It is possible that the 
charter was given as a result of Pompey's act in establishing some 
of the eastern pirates on the site of the old Roman colony (cf. Momm- 
sen, Ges. Schr. i, 151, n. 18). In this case the lex would date from 
the year 59 when Pompey's acts were finally ratified. 

The extant portion of the charter deals with the peculation of 
public, sacred, and religious funds (11. 1-6). In 11. 7-25 the charter 
provides for the cautio of magistrates (cf. no. 65, chap. 70). Since 
the first magistrates could not furnish securities to their prede- 
cessors, they were required to give them to quattuorvirs, who may 
have been the commissioners sent out from Rome (Mommsen, 
op. cit. i, 156), or the clause may mean that the first magistrates 
gave a cautio to their colleagues in turn (Hardy, op. cit. 1 06, n. 2). 

The members of the local curia are required to own a house 
within the territory of the municipality, and this dwelling must 
have not less than 1500 tiles on the roof. For this method of 
estimating property, cf. the tax paid by Roman senators in 43 B.C. 
of 4 obols for each tile (Cass. Dio, 46. 31). The law regarding the 
demolition of houses (11. 3238), and that regarding the right of 
officials to do paving or to dig drains (11. 39-42) may be found with 
slight changes in the charter of Urso (no. 26, chapp. 75, 77). The 
clause contained in 11. 43 ff. was designed to check ex-officials from 
leaving the city before they had discharged all the liabilities which 
might have been incurred in the performance of their office. 


(58 a. Chr.) 

Durrbach, Choix d'inscr. Dtlos^ 163; Suppl. Ep. Gr. i, 335. 

A. Gabinius A. f. Capito cos., L. Calpurnius L. f. Piso cos. de 

s(enatus) s(ententia) popu/um iuure rogavere populusque iuure scivit . . 

pro aede Castor(is) a(nte) d(iem) vi kal(endas) (mensis). Tribus . . 

principiumfuit, A. Gabinius A. f. Capito pro tribu primus scivit: \\ 

5 Velttis mbeatis. Quom res publica pot. . .divinis. .us ac consilieis 

[ 284 ] 


sit aucta quomque. . . .r/arissumae ceivitatis sit confirmata. . . . 
decorata, in quo numero fanum Apo/Jinis. . , . antiquissumum ac 
religiosissumum sit constitutum. . ||. .em et sanctitatem caerimoni- 10 
asq(ue) pr. . . .Delum insulam, in qua insula Apollinem et Dianam 
natos esse arbitrantur^ vecteigalibus leiberari, quae insula post 
hominum memoriam semper fuiti regum ceivitatium nationumque 
imperieis sacra \eibera immunis? yuomque praedones, quei orbem 
terrarum complureis annos vexarintl \\ fana delubra simu/^cra 15 
deorum immor/alium loca religiosissuma devastating lege Ga&nia 
superatei ac deletei s/'nt, et omneis reliqua praeter insu/am Delum 
sedes Apollinis ac Dianae in anteiquom sp/endorem sit rest/Vuta popu- 
leique Romani digmVatis maiestatis^# causal pu/cherrume adminis- 
trata, imperio am/>//ficato />ace per orbem terrarum \\ //laminsul^m 20 
nobilissumam ac sartissum^m deis immorta/ibus restituil et m- 
sulaml^/berari. Neve ..... sit. . .quomvectigaleius. .adjudications 
quam I. C. A., .sup. (?) Delei feceruw/. . ., neve quid aliud vec- 
teigal neve pro rustodia publicei frumenti neve quis post^^ insular 
illas vicinas quae circum De/um iacent || Artemeitam C. ladeam. ... 25 
as locet eas insulas /#ciat. .quei (?) Delum mcolunt 
queique postea incolent vect^/gal. . .Jure insult?. . . .verunt, fue- 
runt. . .Mitridates in. . .m iure insula Delus queique earn incolent 
sint c. .||.udemve quam int. . .Z)^lumque ad. . .Delum queique 30 
earn \ncolent insulasve quae s(upra) s(criptae) s(unt) . . ..rei eius 
familia pecuniave plus minus diminuta sit. . .ere populei plebisve . 
it magistn/taj prove magistratu . ua iudicatioque. . .interced. . . 
quominu\\s setiusve d(e) e(a) r(e) iudicetur sive iudicium fiat liceto. 35 
S(i) s(acrum) s(anctum) e(st) q(uod) n(on) i(ure) s(it) r(ogatum) y 
e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihil) r(ogatur). 

Aevfci\ov. .tuo] 
. || . . .TTpb j]fiep]S)V % tca\[av8wv ...... 40 

From Delos. The date of the document is fixed by the names of 
the consuls at the head of the Greek text. The law was passed by 
the senate and confirmed by the comitia tributa (Cuq, B.C.H. 
46 (1922)5 20 1 ff.). Delos had suffered severely under Mithradates 
and from the raids of the pirates until Pompey cleared the latter 
from the seas. The Delians were granted immunity from certain 


taxes probably the tithes, and from the accessory expense of 
convoying or transporting grain to Rome. The island was also 
made free although it was still under the control of Athens (Cuq, 
loc. cit. 209^.). The implications of this law are interesting. Delos, 
although under Athenian jurisdiction, seems to have paid tribute 
to Rome before the passage of the Gabinian law; otherwise the 
gift of immunity is meaningless. Similarly the Caunians paid tribute 
to Rome and Rhodes; cf. Dio Chrys. 31. 125; see also Livy, 41.6; 
and Cic. adfam. 13. 56. 

The interpretation of 11. 30 ff. is uncertain. Apparently those 
who had suffered in the late wars and raids were given the right 
to appeal to Roman magistrates in preference to local or Athenian 
judges for the settlement of claims (cf. no. 19, col. n, 11. I ff.}. 
Cuq points out (loc. cit. 21 off.) that this provision indicates the 
policy of the Roman seriate in binding cities to Rome, even though 
they enjoyed the status of civitates liberae^ by giving them the 
advantages of appealing to Roman law and of being protected by 
Roman magistrates. 


(ca. 56-50 a. Chr.) 

Knackfuss, Das Rathaus von Milet, p. 101, 11. 38 ff. 

. . .pa? err* a/cvpd)(7L c5[^] avei\\v)$e KOL 

40 Kutfep[<wz/]6 crvvrvxtov ev^apicrrrjcre [ra ra^\ 
(Tvvrrjptov ra err e/j[ol /zr) 8ta(?)]|Xu6^. f/ Q0ev 
nvo)v rrepl [ravTCi d]|i/atSetaz/ az/ecr^?7cr#6, redav/jLafca* Si a$ 
[amas] | Trpos re TO KOLVQV TWV c EXX^coz/ yeypa^a, 
45 ]/4a9, 'E^>eo-tou9, Tpa\\iavov$, 'AXaySa^S 

*2i/jLVpvaiov$, TlepyafjLrjvovs, 2ap8ta^o[u9J, | 'ASpa/jLvrrjvovs, va 
re v/JLels TT/OO? ra? v rfji, 8[to6|/c]r/cret rfji iSiat, vroXet? Sia?ro- 
<TreL\r](j6e ev re T&H eV[t]|^)a^ecrTaTft)t TOTTCOL ev crrvXcTrapacrrdSi 
50 eVl | \i0ov \evtcov ev^apa^Bfjvai (frpovTicrfjTe r[ai)]||Ta ra 
, 'iva tcowo)? Trdo-rji rijc e7rap^eia[c TO] | ^IKCLIOV 
i et<? TOI^ del %povov, ai re a\\\ai vracrat 7roXet9 KCL\ 
TO avrbv Trap* avrois \ 7roir)aa)criv, els re ra Sq/jLoaia 
diroO&vrai vofJ,o[(f)V\d]\fCLa real %pr)fjLartcrrtfpia. Trjv Se airiav 
55 &i r)v 'EXX^t^jH/co^ eypatya, JJLT) eTri&rrjo-rjre* Kara vovv yap 



TL Trapa Trjv epp,rjveiav eXacraoi/ ra [<yeypa/jL\/Jb]eva 

rrjv Se eV^crroX^i/ e'S&>/ca | T^/io/e 
yopov real ^wa-itcpdrrji Tlv^Oicovos \ 7rp]e<r/3evTal<; 
TWV 777309 r[an Ma6az/||Sp]&H. "Eppcr#e. 60 

This inscription comes from Miletus. A fragment of the same 
letter is published in Inschriften von Przene, 106. Unfortunately 
both inscriptions are so fragmentary that the purpose of the letter 
cannot be determined. It is evident, however, that it was directed 
to the KOLVOV of Greeks throughout the province, and probably 
contained regulations to be enforced uniformly throughout the 
district. In 11. 46 /. we have a reference to the regtones into which 
the province was divided by Sulla for administrative purposes 
(Marquardt, St. Ferw. i, 339). It is interesting to note that the 
writer explains his motive in publishing his edict in Greek instead 
of Latin (11. 54^.). This might imply that letters and edicts issued 
by the Romans in the Greek provinces had hitherto been published 
in Latin, but, if so, they had been translated into Greek before they 
were recorded on stone in most cases where such records are found 
(cf. no. 65 a). The governor also requires that copies of his letter 
be preserved in the proper archives in cities where copies were not 
engraved on stone. 


(ca. 46 a. Chr.) 

Ditt. Or. Gr. 449; Fraenkel, Alterthumer von Pergamon^ 413. 

'O Sr}/zo9 Ti/Jii]o-ev \ \\oir\iov ^LepoiXiov Ylo7r\iov viov 
' I era vp i | KO v, rov avOvTrarov, yeyovora (rcorrjpa teal \ evepyerrfv 
Tr}<? 7roXea>9 tccu aTroSeSco/cora rijc \\ TroXet rovs Trarpiov? VO/JLOVS 5 
/cat rrjv Brj/jLO/cpa\riav dbovXairov. 

From Pergamum. The reforms in provincial government intro- 
duced by Caesar brought great relief to the provinces suffering from 
the exactions of the publicani. When Pergamum lost the right to 
use her own laws is unknown. Other inscriptions from Asia indi- 
cate the gratitude of the cities and the relief which they experienced 
under the new regime (cf. Inschriften von Magnesia y 142; Ditt. Or. 
Gr. 450). 

[ 287 ] 



(45 a. Chr.) 

GIL. i, 206; Bruns, 18; Dessau, 60855 Girard, p. 80 ; Ricco- 
bono, p. 109. 

Quern h(ac) l(ege) ad co(n)s(ulem) profiterei oportebit, sei 

is, quom eum profiterei oportebit, Romae non erit, turn quei eius | 
negotia curabit, is e#dem omnia, quae eum, quoius negotia curabit, 
sei Romae esset, h. 1. profiterei | oportem, item isdemque diebus 
ad cos. profitemino. | 

Quern h. 1. ad cos. profiterei oportebit, sei is pup(illus) seive ea 

pu(pilla) erit, turn quei eius pup(illi) pu(pillae)ve tutor erit, item 

5 eadem||que omnia in iisdem diebus ad cos. profitemino, ita utei e/ 

quae quibusque diebus eum eamve, sei pup(illus) pu(pilla)ve non | 

esset, h. 1. profiterei oporteret. | 

Sei cos., a^/ que#z h. 1. professiones fierei oportebit, Romae non 
erit, turn is, quern profiterei oportebit, quod eum profiterei | opor- 
tebit, ad pr(aetorem) ur(banum) aut, sei is Romae non erit, ad eum 
pr(aetorem), quei inter peregrinos ius deicet, profitemmo, ita utei | 
eum ad cos., sei turn Romae esset, h. I. profiterei oporteret. || 
10 Sei ex eis cos. et pr(aetoribus), ad quos h. 1. professiones fierei 
oportebit, nemo eorum Romae erit, turn is, quern profiterei opor- 
tebit, | quod eum profiterei oportebit, ad tr(ibunum) pl(ebei) pro- 
fitemino, ita ute/ eum ad cos. pr(aetorem)y^ urb(anum) eumque 
quei inter peregri|nos ius deicet, sei turn Romae esset, h. 1. profiterei 
oporteret. | 

Quod quemquem h. 1. profiterei oportebit, is, apud quern ea 
professio fiet, eius que/ profitebitur nomen, et ea quae projfessus 
erit, et quo die professus sit, in tabulas publicas referunda curato, 
15 eademque omnia, quae uteique in tabulas || rettulerit, /ta in tabulam 
in album referunda | curato, idque aput/orum, et quom frumentum 
populo dabitur, ibei ubei frumen|tum populo dabitur, cottidie 
maiorem partem diei propositum habeto, u(nde) d(e) p(lano) r(ecte) 
l(egi) p(ossit). | 

Queiquomque frumentum populo dab/t damdumve curabit, nei 
qu0/ eorum, quorum nomina h. 1. ad cos. pr(aetorem) tr(ibunum) 



pl(ebei) in ta|bula in albo proposita erunt, frumentum dato neve 
dare iubeto neve sinito. Quei adversus ea eorum qu0i frumentum | 
dederit, is in tr(itici) m(odios) i HS IDDD populo dare damnas esto, 
eiusque pecuniae quei volet petitio esto. || 

Quae viae in urbe Rom(a) propiusve u(rbem) R(omam) p(assus) 20 
M, ubei continente habitabitur, sunt erunt, quoius ante aedificium 
earum quae | via ent, is earn viam arbitratu eius aed(ilis), quoi ea 
pars urbis h. 1. obvenerit, tueatur; isque aed(ilis) curato, uti, quorum | 
ante aedificium erit, quamque viam h. 1. quemque tueri oportebit, 
ei omnes earn viam arbitratu eius tueantur, neve eo | loco iqua 
consistat, quominus conmode populus ea via utatur. | 

Aed(iles) cur(ules) aed(iles) pl(ebei), quei nunc sunt, queiquomque 
post h. 1. r(ogatam) factei createi erunt eumve mag(istratum) in- 
ierint, iei in diebus v proxumeis, || quibus eo mag(istratu) designatei 25 
erunt eumve mag(istratum) inierint, inter se paranto aut sortiunto, 
qua in partei urbis quisque | eorum vias publicas in urta Roma, 
propiusve u(rbem) R(omam) p(assus) M, reficiundassternendas curet, 
eiusque rei procurationem | habeat. Quae pars quoique aed(ilei) 
ita h. 1. obvenerit, eius aed(ilis) in eis loceis quae in ea partei erunt 
viarum reficien|darum tuemdarum procuratio esto, utei h. 1. opor- 
tebit. | 

Quae via inter aedem sacram et aedificium locumve publicum 
et inter aedificium privatum est erit, eius || viae partem dimidiam is 30 
aed(ilis), quoi ea pars urbis obvenerit, in qua parte ea aedis sacra erit 
seive aedificium | publicum seive locus publicus, tuemdam locato. | 

Quemquomque ante suum aedificium viam publicam h. 1. tueri 
oportebit, quei eorum earn viam arbitratu eius aed(ilis), | quoius 
oportuerit, non tuebitur, earn viam aed(ilis), quoius arbitratu earn 
tuerei oportuerit, tuemdam locato; | isque aed(ilis) diebus ne minus 
x, antequam locet aput forum ante tribtnale suom propositum 
habeto, quam || viam tuendam et quo die locaturus sit, e/ quorum 35 
ante aedificium ea via sit; eisque, quorum ante aedificium j ea via 
erit, procuratoribusve eorum domum denuntietur facito, se earn 
viam locaturum, et quo die locaturus | sit; eamque locationem 
palam in foro per q(uaestorem) urb(anum), eumve quei aerario 
praerit, facito. Quamta pecunia earn | viam locaverit, tamtae 
pecuniae eum eosque, quorum ante aedificium ea via erit pro 

AMA [ 289 ] 19 


portion!, quamtum | quoiusque ante aedificium viae in longitudine 
et in latitudine erit, q(uaestor) urb(anus), queive aerario praerit, in 

40 tabular || publicas pecuniae factae referundum curato. Ei qu*?i earn 
viam tuemdam redemerit, tamtae pecuniae eum eosjve adtribuito 
sine d(olo) m(alo). Sei is, quei adtributus erit, earn pecuniam diebus 
xxx proxum^is, quibus ipse aut pro [curator eius sciet adtributionem 
factam esse ei, quoi adtributus erit, non solverit neque satis fecerit, 
is | quamtae pecuniae adtributus erit, tamtam pecuniam et eius 
dimidium ei, quoi adtributus erit, dare debeto, | inque earn rem is, 
quo quomque de ea re aditum erit, iudicem iudiciumve ita dato, utei 

45 de pecunia credita || iudicem iudiciumve dari oportem. | 

Quam viam h. 1. tuemdam locari oportebit, aed(ilis), quern earn 
viam tuendam locare oportebit, is earn viam per | q(uaestorem) 
urb(anum), queive aerario praerit, tuemdam locato, utei earn viam 
arbitratu eius, quei earn viam locandam | curaverit, tueatur. Quam- 
tam pecuniam ita quaeque via locata erit, t(arntam) p(ecuniam) 
q(uaestor) urb(anus), queive aerario praerit, | redemptorei, quoi e 
lege locationis dari oportebit, heredeive eius damdam adtribuendam 
curato. || 

50 Quo minus aed(iles) et mivir(ei) vieis in urbem purgandeis, 
nvir(ei) vieis extra propiusve urbem Rom(am) passus M \ purgandeis, 
queiquomque erunt, vias publicas purgandas curent eiusque rei 
potestatem habeant, | ita utei legibus pl(ebei)ve sc(itis) s(enatus)w 
c(onsultis) oportet oportebit, emj h. 1. n(ihilum) r(ogatur). | 

Quoius ante aedificium semita in loco erit, is earn semitam, eo 
aedificio perpetuo lapidibus perpetueis | integreis continentem, con- 
stratam recte habeto arbitratu eius aed(ilis), quoius in ea parte h. 1. 

55 viarum || procurat/0 erit. | 

Quae viae in u(rbe) R(oma) sunt erunt intra ea loca, ubi con- 
tinenti hab/tab/tur, ne quis in ieis vieis post k. lanuar. | primas 
plostrum interdiu post solem ortum, neve ante horam x diei ducito 
agito, nisi quod aedium | sacrarum deorum inmortalium caussa 
aedificandarum, operisve publice faciumdei causa adwhei portajri 
oportebit, aut quod ex urbe exve ieis loceis earum rerum, quae 

60 publice demolienda^ locatae erunt, publi||ce exportarei oportebit, et 
quarum rerum caussa plostra h. 1. certeis hominibus certeis de 
causeis agere | ducere licebit. | 


Quibus diebus virgines Vestales regem sacrorum, flamines plos- 
treis in urbe sacrorum publicorum p(opuli) R(omani) caussa | vehi 
oportebit, quaeque plostra triumphi caussa, quo die quisque trium- 
pha^it, ducei oportebit, quaeque | plostra ludorum, quei Romae aut 
urbei Romae p(ropius) p(assus) M publice feient, inve pompam 
ludeis circiensibus ducei agei opus || erit; qu0 minus earum rerum 65 
caussa eisque diebus plostra interdiu in urbe ducantur agantur, 
e(ius) h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). | 

Quae plostra noctu in urbem inducta erunt, quo minus ea plostra 
inania aut stercoris exportandei caussa | post solem ortum h(oris) x 
diei bubus iumenteisve iuncta in u(rbe) R(oma) et ab u(rbe) R(oma) 
p(assus) M esse liceat, e(ius) h. 1. n(ihilum) rogatur. | 

Quae loca publica porticusve/mblicae in u(rbe) R(oma) p(ropius)- 
ve u(rbei) R(omae) p(assus) M sunt erunt, quorum locorum quoius- 
que porticus | aedilium <?orumve mag(istratuom), quei vieis loceisque 
publiceis u(rbis) R(omae) p(ropius)ve u(rbei) R(omae) p(assus) M 
purgandeis praerunt, legibus || procuratio est erit, nei quis in ieis 7 
loceis inve ieis porticibus quid in aedificatum inmolitamve habeto, | 
neve ea loca porticumve quam possideto, neve eorum quod saeptum 
clausumve habeto, quo minus eis | loceis porticibusque populus 
utatur pateantve, nisi quibus uteique leg(ibus) pl(ebei)ve sc(itis) 
s(enatus)ve c(onsultis) concessum permissumve ej/. | 

Quibus loceis ex lege locationis, quam censor aliusve quis mag- 
(istratus) publiceis vectigalibus ultrove tributeis |fruendeis tuendeisve 
dixet, dixerit, eis, quei ea fruenda tuendave conducta habebunt, ut 
utei fruei liceat || #ut utei ea ab eis custodiantur, cautum est; ei 75 
quo minus ieis loceis utantur fruantur ita, utei quoique eorum | ex 
fege /0O7 tionis ieis sine d(plo) m(alo) utei fruei licebit, ex h. 1. n(ihilum) 
r(ogatur). | 

Quos lud(w) quisque Romae p(ropius)ve u(rbei) R(omae) p(assus) 
M faciet, quo minus ei eorum ludorum caussa scaenam pulpitum 
ceteraque, | quae ad eos ludos opus erunt, in loco publico ponere 
statuere, eisque diebus, quibus eos faciet, loco publico utei | liceat, 
e(ius) h. 1. n(ihilum) r(ogatur). || 

Quei scribae librarei magistratibus apparebunt, ei quo minus 80 
loceis publiceis, ubei is, quoi quisque eorum apparebunt, | iuserit, 
apparendi caussa utantur, e(ius) h.l. n(ihilum) r(ogatur). | 

[ 291 ] i 9 - 2 


Quae loca serveis publiceis ab cens(oribus) habitandei utendei 
caussa adtributa sunt, ei quo minus eis loceis utantur, e(ius) h. L 
n(ihilum) r(ogatur). | 

Queiquomque in municipieis coloneis praefectureis foreis con- 
ciliabuleis c(ivium) R(omanorum) nvir(ei) mivir(ei) erunt aliove [ 
quo nomine mag(istratum) potestatemve su/ragio eorum, quei 

85 quoiusque municip* coloniae praefecturae || for; conciliabuli erunt 
habebunt: nei quis eorum que^z in eo municipio colonitf praefectun? 
/oro concilia|bulo in senatum decuriones conscriptosve legito neve 
sublegito neve c0ptato neve recitandos curato, | nisi in demortuei 
damnateive locum eiusve, quei confessus erit, se senatorem de- 
curionem conscreiptumve | ibei h. 1. esse non licere. | 

Quei minor annos xxx natus est erit, nei quis eorum post k. 

90 lanuar. secundas in municipio colonia praefe||ctura nvir(atum) 
iinvir(atum) neve quern alium mag(istratum) petito neve capito 
neve gerito, nisei quei eorum stipendia | equo in legione m, aut 
pedestria in legione vi fecerit, quae stipendia in castreis inve pro- 
vincia maiore#2 | partem sui quoiusque anni fecerit, aut bina semes- 
tria, quae ei pro singuleis ann^eis procedere oporteat, | aut ei vocat/o 
rei militaris legibus pl(ebei)ve sc(itis) exve foidere erit, quocirca 
eum inveitum merere non | oporteat. Neve quis, que/ praeconium 
dissignationem libitinamve faciet, dum eorum quid faciet, in muni-|j 

95 cipio colonia praefectura nvir(atum) inivir(atum) aliumve quern 
mag(istratum) petito neve capito neve gerito neve habeto, | neve 
ibei senator neve decurio neve conscriptus esto, neve sententiam 
dicito. Quei eorum ex eis, quei s(upra) s(criptei) s(unt), | adversus 
ea fecerit, is HS IDDO p(opulo) d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), eiusque pe- 
cuniae quei volet petitio esto. | 

Queiquomque in municipio colonia praefectura post k. Quinct- 
(iles) prim(as) comitia nvir(eis) n//vir(eis) aleive quoi mag(istratui) | 
rogando subrogandove habebit, is ne quern, quei minor anneis 

100 xxx natus est erit, nvi^um), m/vir^m), quei^^ ibei || alium 
mag(istratum) habeat, renuntiato neve renuntiarei iubeto, nisi quei 
stipendia equo in legione in, aut stijpendia pedestria in legione vi 
fecerit, quae stipendia in castreis inve provincia maiorem partem 
sui | quoiusque anni fecerit, aut bina semestria, qua^ ei pro singuleis 
annueis procedere oporteat, cum eo | quod ei legibus pl(eibei)ve 

[ 292 ] 


sc(iteis) procedere oportebit, aut ei vocatio rei militaris legibus 
pl(ebei)ve sc(iteis) exve foedere | erit, quo circa eum invitum merere 
non oporteat. Neve eum, quei praeconium dissignationem libiti- 
na#zve faciet, dum eorum quid || faciet, nvir(um) imvir(um), queive 105 
ibei mag(istratus) sit, renuntiato, neve in senatum neve in dejcuri- 
onum conscriptorunvL^ numero legito, sublegito coptato neve sen- 
tentiam rogato neve dicere neve | ferre iubeto sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo). 
Quei adversus ea fecerit, is HS IDDD p(opulo) d(are) d(amnas) esto, 
eiusque pecuniae quei volet petitio esto. | 

Quae municipia colonial praefectura* fora conciliabula c(ivium) 
R(omanorum) sunt erunt, nei quis in eorum quo municipio | 
colonia praefectura foro conciliabulo in senatu decurionibus con- 
screipteisque esto, neve quo/ ibi in eo ordine || sentemtiam deicere no 
ferre liceto: quei furtei, quod ipse fecit fecerit, condemnatus pactusve 
est erit; | queive iudicio fiducitf* pro socio, tutelae, mandatei, in- 
iuriarum, deve d(olo) m(alo) condemnatus est erit; queive lege j 
Plaetoria ob eamve rem, quod adversus earn legem fecit fecerit, 
condemnatus est erit; queive depugnandei | caussa auctoratus est 
erit fuit fuerit; queive | in Jure bonam coplam abiuravit abiuraverit, 
bonamve copiam iuravit iuraverit; quei^ sponsoribus creditoribusve 
sueis renuntiavit renuntiaverit, se soldum solvere non posse, aut 
cum eis || pactus est erit, se soldum solvere non posse; prove quo 115 
datum depensum est erit; quoiusve bona ex edicto | eius, qu^i i(ure) 
d(eicundo) praefuit praefuerit, praeterquam sei quoius, quom pu- 
pillus esset reive publicae caussa abesset, | neque d(olo) m(alo) fecit 
fecerit quo magis r(ei) p(ublicae) c(aussa) a(besset), possessa pro- 
scriptave sunt erunt; queive iudicio publico Romae | condemnatus 
est erit, quo circa eum in Italia esse non liceat, neque in integrum 
resti/wtus est erit; queive in eo | municipio colonia praefectura foro 
conciliabulo, quoius erit, iudicio publico condemnatus est erit; 
quemve || k(alumniae) praevaricationis caussa accussasse fecisseve 120 
quod iudicatum est erit; quoive aput exercitum ingnominiae | caussa 
ordo ademptus est erit; quemve imperator ingnominiae caussa ab 
exercitu decedere iusit iuserit; | queive ob caput c(ivis) R(omanei) 
referundum pecuniam praemium aliudve quid cepit ceperit; queive 
corpora quaestum | fecit fecerit; queive lanistaturam artemve ludi- 
cram fecit fecerit; queive lenocinium faciet. Quei | adversus ea 

[ 293 ] 


in municipio colonia praefectun? foro conciliabulo in senatu de- 

125 curionibus conscripteisve /uerit || sentemtiamve dixerit, is HS IDDD 
p(opulo)d(are)d(amnas)esto,eiusquepecuniaequeivoletpetitio esto. | 
Quoi h. 1. in municipio colonia praefectura foro conciliabulo 
senatorem decurionem conscriptum esse, | inque eo ordine sentem- 
tiam dicere ferre non licebit, nei quis, quei in eo municipio colonia 
praefectura | foro conciliabulo senatum decuriones conscriptos 
habebit, eum in senatum decuriones conscriptos | ire iubeto sc(iens) 
d(olo) m(alo); neve eum ibei sentemtiam rogato neive dicere neive 

130 ferre iubeto sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo); neve quis, que/ || in eo municipio 
colonia praefectura foro conciliabulo sufragio eorum maxumam 
potestatem habebit, | eorum quern ibei in senatum decuriones con- 
scriptos ire, neve in eo numero esse n^ve sentemtiam ibei dicere | 
ferreve sinito sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo); neve quis eius rationem comi- 
tieis conciliove habeto, neive quis quern, set adversus ea comitieis 
conci/iove creatum est renuntiato; neve quis, | quei ibei mag(istratum) 
potestatemve habebit, eum cum senatu decurionibus conscriptm 
ludos spectare neive in convivio | publico esse sin/to sc(iens) d(olo) 
m(alo). || 

r 35 Quibus h. 1. in municipio colonia praefectura foro conciliabulo 
in sonata decurionibus conscripteis esse | non licebit, ni quis eorum 
in municipio colonia praefectura foro conciliabulo nvir(atum) 
iinvir(atum) aliamve | quam potestatem ex quo honore in eum 
ordinem perveniat, petito neve capito; neve quis eorum ludeis, | 
cumve gladiatores ibei pugnabunt, in loco senatorio decurionum 
conscriptorum sed^to neve spectato | neve convivium publicum is 
inito; neive quis, quei adversus ea creator renuntiatuj erit, ibei 

140 nvir imvir || esto, neve ibei m(agistratum) potestatemve habeto. 
Quei adversus ea fecerit, is HS IDDD p(opulo) d(are) d(amnas) esto, 
eiusque pecuniae quei | volet petitio esto. | 

Quae municipia coloniae praefecturae c(ivium) R(omanorum) in 
Italia sunt erunt, quei in eis municipieis coloneis | praefectureis 
maximum mag(istratum) maxim^mve potestatem ibei habebit turn, 
cum censor aliusve | quis mag(istratus) Romae populi cmsum aget, 

145 is diebus ix proxumeis, quibus sciet Romae c^nsum populi || agi, 
omnium municipium colonorum suorum queique eius praefecturae 
erunt, q(uei) c(ives) R(omanei) erunt, censum | ag/to, eorumque 

[ 294 ] 


nomina praenomina, patres aut patronos, tribus, cognomina, et quot 
annos | quisque eorum habet, et rationem pecuniae ex formula 
census, quae Romae ab eo, qui turn censum | populi acturus erit, 
proposita erit, a ieis iurateis accipito ; eaque omnia in tabulas publicas 
sui | municipi referunda curato; eosque libros per legates, quos 
maior pars decurionum conscriptorum || ad earn rem legarei rnittei 150 
censuerint turn, cum e# res consuleretur, ad eos, quei Romae censum 
agent, | mittito; curatoque, utei quom amplius dies LX reliquei erunt, 
ante quam diem ei, queiquomque Romae | censum age/, finem 
populi cewsendi faciant, eos adea/ librosque eius municipi coloniae 
praefecturae | edant; isque censor, seive quis alius mag(istratus) 
censum populi aget, diebus v proxumeis, quibus legatei eius | 
municipi coloniae praefecturae adierint, eos libros census, quei ab 
ieis legateis dabuntur, accipito || s(ine) d(olo) m(alo) exque ieis 155 
libreis, quae ibei scripta erunt, in tabulas publicas referunda curato, 
easque tabulas | eodem loco, ubei ceterae tabulae publicae erunt, in 
quibus census populi perscriptus erit, condendaj curato. | 

Qui pluribus in municipieis coloneis praefectureis domicilium 
habebit, et is Romae census erit, quo magis | in municipio colonia 
praefectura h. 1. censeatur, e(ius) h. 1. n(ihilum) r(ogatur). | 

Quei lege pl(ebeive) sc(ito) permissus est/uit, utei leges in muni- 
cipio fundano municipibusve eius municipi daret, || sei quid is post 160 
h. 1. r(ogatam) in eo anno proxumo, quo h. 1. populus iuserit, ad eas 
leges addiderh commutaverit conrexerit, municip/s fundanos | item 
teneto, utei oporteret, sei ea^ res ab eo turn, quom primum leges 
eis municipibus lege pl(ebei)ve sc(ito) dedit, | ad eas leges additae 
commutatae conrectae essent; neve quis interced/to neve quid 
facito, quo minus | ea rata sint, quove minus municipis fundanos 
tenea^t eisque optemperetur. 

1. 19. i i.e. singulos. 

1. 29. via inter; viam per, tablet. 

1. 64. ludorum, sc. caussa. 

1. 92. oporteat; cum eo quod ei legibus plebeive sciteis procedere oportebit, 

omitted. Cf. 11. 102-103. 
1. 117. abesset; Mommsen and Dessau add bona possessa proscriptave sunt 


[ 295 ] 


A very large bronze tablet, with a more ancient Greek in- 
scription on the back of it. It is broken into two parts. The lower 
part (11. 76-163) was found near the site of Heraclea in 1732. The 
upper part was discovered in 1754. Both parts are now in the 
museum at Naples. The beginning of the law has been lost. The 
date of the inscription is fixed approximately or exactly from a 
letter of Cicero (adfam. 6. 1 8. i). In this letter he writes to Lepta, 
stmulatque accept a Seleuco tuo litteras, statim quaesivi e Balbo per 
codicilloSy quid esset in lege. Rescripsit eos y qui facer ent praeconium, 
vetari esse in decurionibus ; qui fecissent, non vetari. The provision 
mentioned here is the exact point covered in our law (1. 94), and 
Cicero is evidently referring to this measure. He has obtained 
information in advance from an intimate friend of Caesar con- 
cerning the bill about to be submitted, which has not yet been 
promulgated. The date of Cicero's letter, Jan. 45 B.C., fixes the 
probable date of the law as 45 B.C. on Caesar's return from Spain 
(cf. Mommsen in Bruns, p. 102). For arguments in favor of the 
year 46, cf. Nissen, Rh. Mus. 45 (1890), 100 jfl, Hackel, Wien. 
Stud. 24 (1902), 552, and others. Since Savigny's time (cf. Verm. 
Schr. 3, 279 ff.) it has commonly been believed that this measure 
was intended to provide a normal charter for Italian towns. This 
conclusion was based largely upon certain apparent references in 
the Civil Law (cf. especially, Cod. J. 7. 9. i; Dig. 50. 9. 3) to a 
general lex municipality which was identified with Caesar's measure, 
but most scholars have abandoned this identification (cf. however, 
Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 139 ff.^ 165^".). Mommsen has gone so 
far (Ges. Schr. i, 153) as to deny the existence of a model charter 
at any period whatsoever, but cf. pp. 185^. 

The extant tablet covers four different matters, with a supple- 
mentary provision (11. 159-163) ratifying such changes as the com- 
missioners may make in the measure during the first year after its 
adoption. These four subjects are: (i) rules governing the distribu- 
tion of corn in Rome (11. 1-19); (2) regulations determining the 
duties of theaediles and other officials in Rome in repairing, cleaning, 
and policing the streets (11. 20-82); (3) conditions governing the 
eligibility of candidates for the magistracies and the senate (11. 83- 
141); (4) provisions regulating the taking of the census in the 

[ 296 ] 


municipality (II. 142-158). It is very difficult to account for the 
appearance, on a single tablet, of laws dealing with such diverse 
matters as the corn supply and the functions of the aedile, and 
concerning Rome as well as Italian municipalities (cf. Herzog, 
2 y i, n. i). Perhaps we have on the tablet parts of three different 
laws, viz. part of a municipal charter, and parts of two laws dealing 
with the corn supply and the aedile' s duties in Rome. The theory 
that the law is a lex satura (Savigny, op. cit. 3, 327^.; de Petra, 
Mon. ant. d. Lincei^ 6 (1895), 433 ff.} has been given up by most 
scholars. Still others believe that the law is a unit, being part of a 
comprehensive measure intended for Rome as well as for the Italian 
municipalities. Possibly, if we accept the first of these three theories 
mentioned above, we may surmise that we have on the tablet a 
municipal charter as the pihe de resistance, to which is added an 
article concerning the corn supply for the information of a muni- 
cipality, and a chapter prescribing the duties of a Roman aedile to 
serve as a guide for the municipal magistracy (cf. Herzog, loc. cit.}. 
Whatever relation the different parts of the inscription have to one 
another, from 1. 83 on we have part of an early municipal charter 
which deals with the local executives and the local senate. Cf. no. 2O. 
For the judicial powers of local magistrates, cf. no. 27. 

It seems probable from a comparison of 1. 83 with 11. 8990 
that fora and conciliabula had local magistrates, but that these 
magistrates did not bear the title of duoviri or of quattuorviri. On 
similar grounds we infer (cf. 11. I42jf.) that the census was not 
taken in fora and conciliabula. (For another list of communities, 
cf. no. 27, chap, xxn.) Although criminal courts held in fora and 
conciliabula are mentioned in 11. 118-119, they cannot have been 
presided over by local magistrates (cf. Schulten, R.E. 7, 63), but 
must have been conducted by praefecti sent from larger com- 
munities. From 11. 83-88 it is clear that magistrates were to be 
elected in the popular assembly, and that decurions could be named 
by the magistrates. On the technical terms in 1. 86, cf. Mommsen, 
St. R. 3, 8557. and nn. Apparently decurions could also be elected 
in the popular assembly (cf. 1. 1 32). 

Rome required the census to be taken in Italian towns as early 
as 209 B.C. (Livy, 29. 15), but this is the earliest extended formula- 

[ 297 ] 


tion which we have of the method of procedure. The charter of 
Bantia (no. II, chap. 4) bears witness to the taking of the census 
in this Oscan town in the second century B.C., and prescribes a 
penalty for those who fail to report themselves. Under the princi- 
pate the census was also required in provincial towns (cf. Kubitschek, 
R.E. 3, 191 8/.). We do not know whether the system outlined 
here originated in Rome or was adopted from other Italian munici- 
palities. The fact that a person might have a domicile in several 
municipalities (1. 157) will be illustrated in concrete cases in later 
inscriptions (cf. no. 94), in which we shall find certain men as 
citizens in several civitates. The course of procedure which was 
followed in granting this charter is indicated in 1. 159. An enabling 
act passed in the popular assembly authorized a commissioner or a 
commission to frame a constitution and, a year after the passage 
of the law, to make any necessary amendments. On the scope of 
this article, cf. Elmore, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. 47 (1916), 40^". 
For an extended commentary on the entire document, cf. Legras, 
La table Latine (THeraclee\ Elmore, Journ. Rom. Studies^ 5 (1915)* 
I25/.; Hardy, Class. Quart, n (1917)5 27/0 Some Problems in 
Roman History ', 239 ff. 


(45 a. Chr.) 

7G< xii, 2, 35, 11. 14-37; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 335 Ditt. Syll? 764 
(in part). 

[Ilepl GUI' 7r]pe<r)8euTa! Mvn\7)vaicov Tlordptov Aea-ficovatcTos, 
Qaivla? Qaivlov rov KaXX/[7r]|7roi;, Se/x^o? A^oO?, 'HpwSrjs 

15 KXea>i/09, Afc% MaTpo/eXeou?, A^/I^T^O? KXecoi/u/AOu, || Kpiva- 
70pa? Ka\\L f 7T7Tov 9 ZftHXo? 'E7Ti7a>ou9 \6yovs eTToirjo-avr 
faXiav, crv/jLfjLa\xt>av aveveovvro, Iva re ev KaTrercoXicoi, 
TToirjvcu gfjt>, a re avrols \ irpbrepov VTTO rfjs (TVJK\^TOV orvytc- 
X^pV^\[^ a *l v > vTa h SeXrwt ^aX/t^ | yeypa/jL/jbeva Trpocr- 

20 i/Xa)(ra^ tva ^ Tre/ol rovrov rov TTpdy^aro^ ovrax; \\ eSo^e^' 
vaptra, <f>i\lav, cru/^/ia%taz/ ai/ai/eaia-acr^a^, az/Spa? dyadovs /cal 
<bi\\ov$ f rrpoo'ayopvo'ai,,v KaTrercaXtco^ 6v<rlav Trotfjaai e^el 
re avrols vrpolrepov vrro 7779 <rvy/c\ijrov <f>i\dv0pco7ra 

[ 298 ] 


ravra ev 

e^elvai, orav OeXwaw iva re Tdlos | Kataap avro/cpdrcop, eav 
avrwt, <f>aivr)Tai, TOTTOVS ^optjyia avrols Kara TO || r>v Trpoyovcov 25 
ra/juiav iiiaOwcrcu, /ce\evo"rjL O(VT)O)<? &>9 av avrwl etc r&v 
Trpay/ACLTcov Trtarea)? re Tr?9 i&ias (fraivrjrai. "ESoei/. 
el Se KOI \ jrporepov eVeru^ere fiot, fcal eypatya Trpo? u/ 
6M^]ay ol 
Trap' VJJLLV aKO\ov6[to<$ T069 | .......... KOI rot?] 

a G^ere Trap 1 rjn&v ro?9 re [7rpor||poz/ Kai rocs 30 
Sea TOVTOV roji) Soyfiaros SeSo/uevoK; TO e^elvai, vf 
T^9 7roXO)9 /cat T?7 

BouXo/xat ouz^] a7ro(j>r]vao-0ac on ovSevl crvy^wpdo ovSe 
pri\cra) are\el Trap* vjj,lv elvai. OJI/TOK oui^ TreTreicrfievot, dap- 
povvres %/cn7<r#[e. . | . . .ai/e//,7ro8]u7TO)9* 70) TauTa T6 77860)9 
TreTTOirjKa v[7rep || vfidSv fcal eu^o/ia^ 6t9 T]O /j,e\\ov alel TLVO<$ 35 
dyaOov Trapairtos V/JLIV [yevecrffai]. | 

From Mytilene. The inscription contains the correspondence 
and treaty between Rome and Mytilene. This city had been loyal 
to Pompey, but after the battle of Pharsalia it had sent an embassy 
to Caesar to sue for pardon (cf. Plutarch, Pomp. 75). A second 
embassy was sent to Rome in 45 B.C. to ask for the renewal of the 
old treaty of alliance. Their request was granted by the senate, and 
Caesar sent this letter to the Mytileneans, of which we publish 
a part. This part includes the decree of the senate renewing the 
treaty and an edict of Caesar wherein he promises the city that no 
resident of Mytilene shall enjoy the privilege of immunity. In spite 
of the fact that this city enjoyed the status of an independent ally 
of Rome, it is apparent that complete autonomy was not implied. 
Since Roman citizens enjoyed special privileges of immunity in the 
cities of the empire, it is probable that the edict of Caesar was 
designed to subject them to the laws, customs, and duties of the 
Mytileneans (cf. p. 192). Mytilene was a free city under Augustus 
(Pliny, N.H. 5, 1 39). It may have lost its privileges under Vespasian 
(Philostratus, Apoll. 5, 41), but they were restored by Hadrian. 
Cf. Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d*Asie> 1 1 8. 

[ 299 ] 



(44 a. Chr.) 

OIL. n, S. 5439; Dessau, 6087; Bruns, 28; Girard, p. 89; 
Riccobono, p. 142. 

>. i, LXL. . .Cut quis ita ;/*rf|num inicere iussus erit, iudicati iure 

111 ma|nus iniectio esto, itque ei s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) facere liceto. 

Vin|dex arbitratu nviri quh;e i(ure) d(icundo) p(raerit) locuples || 

5 esto. Ni vindicem dabit iudicatuirwe faci|et, secum ducito. lure 
civili vinctum habeto. | Si quis in eo vim faciet, ast eius vincitur, 
du|pli damnas esto colonisq(ue) eius colon(iae) HS CCKX) CCIDD | 

10 d(are) d(amnas) esto, eiusque pecuniae qui vo||let petitio, nvir(o) 
qui^e J(ure) d(icundo) p(raerit) exactio iudicati |oque esto. | 

LXII. Ilviri quicumque erunt, Us nvim in eos singulos | lictores 
binos accensos sing(ulos), scribas bi|nos, viatores binos, librarium, 

15 praeconem, || haruspicem, tibicinem habere ius potestas|que esto. 
Quique in ea colonia aedil(es) erunt, | iis aedil(ibus) in eos aedil(es) 
sing(ulos) scribas sing(ulos), publijcos cum cincto limo mi, prae- 
conem, haruspi|cem tibicinem habere ius potestasq(ue) esto. Ex eo || 

20 numero, qui eius coloniae coloni erunt, habe|to. lisque nvir(is) 
aedilibusque, dum eum mag(istratum) ha|bebunt, togas praetextas, 
funalia, cereos hajbere ius potestasq(ue) esto. Quos quisque eo|rum 

25 ita scribas lictores accensos viatorem || tibicinem haruspicem prae- 
conem habebit, iis | omnibus eo anno, quo anno quisque eorum | 
apparebit, militiae vacatio esto, neve quis e|um eo anno, quo 
mag(istratibus) apparebit, invitum | militem facito neve fieri iubeto 

30 neve eum || cogito neve ius iurandum adigito neve a|digi iubeto 
neve sacramento rogato neve | rogari iubeto, nisi tumultus Italici 
Gallic! | ve causa. Eisque mercesin eos singul(os), qui nvi|ris appare- 

35 bunt, tanta esto: in scribas sing(ulos) || HSOO cc, in accensos sing(ulos) 
HS DCC, in lictores | sing(ulos) HS DC, in viatores sing(ulos) HS cccc, 
in libra) rios sing(ulos) HS ccc, in haruspices sing(ulos) HS D, prae|coni 
HS ccc; qui aedilib(us) appareb(unt) : in scribas | sing(ulos) HS DCCC, 
ol. iv in haruspices sing(ulos) HS c, in ti |bicines sing(ulos) HS ccc, in prae- 
cones sing(ulos) HS ccc. | Iis s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) kapere liceto. | 

LXII I. Ilviri, qui primi ad. pr. k. lanuar. mag(istratum) habe- 
bunt, appari | tores totidem habento quot sing(ulis) apparitores ex h(ac) 

[ 300 ] 


l(ege) ha||bere lice/. lisque apparitorib(us) merces tanta esto, | 5 
quantam esse oporteret, si partem mi anni a/>/><7r|uissent, ut pro 
portione, quam diu apparuiss^nt, mer|cedem pro eo kaperent, itque 
iis s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) c(apere) l(iceto). j 

LXIIIL Ilviri quicumque post colon(iam) deductam erunt, ii 
in die||bus x proxumis, quibus eum mag(istratum) gerere coeperint, 10 
at | decuriones referunto, cum non minus duae partes | aderint, quos 
et quot dies festos esse et quae sacra | fieri publice placeat et quos 
ea sacra facere place|at. Quot ex eis rebus decurionum maior pars, 
qui || turn aderunt, decreverint statuerint, it ius ratum|que esto, 15 
eaque sacra eique dies festi in ea colon(ia) | sunto. | 

LXV. Quae pecunia poenae nomine ob vectiga/ia, quae | 
colon(iae) G(enetivae) lul(iae) erunt, in publicum redacta erit, earn || 
pecuniam ne quis erogare neve cui dare neve attri|buere potestatem 20 
habeto nisi at ea sacra, quae in | colon(ia) aliove quo loco colonorum 
nomine fiawt, | neve quis aliter earn pecuniam s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) 
kapito, n^ve quis | de ea pecunia ad decuriones referundi neve quis || 
de ea pecunia sententiam dicendi ius potestat(em)|que habeto. Earn- 25 
que pecuniam ad ea sacra, quae | in ea colon(ia) aliove quo loco 
colonor^w nomine | fient, nviri s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) dato attribuito 
itque ei facere | ius potestasq(ue) esto. Eique cui ea pecunia dabi||tur 30 
s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) kapere liceto, | 

LXVI. Quos pontifices quosque augures G. Caesar, quive | 
iussu eius colon(iam) deduxerit, fecerit ex colon(ia) Ge|net(iva), ei 
pon/ifices eique augures c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) sunto, 
eiq(ue) | pon/i/?ces auguresque in pontificum augu||rum conlegio 35 
in ea colon(ia) sunto, ita uti qui | optima lege optumo Jure in quaque 
colon(ia) | pontif(ices) augures sunt erunt. lisque pontificibus | 
auguriiusque, qui in quoque eorum collegio | erunt, liberisque eorum 
militiae munerisqjue publici vacatio sacrosanct^ esto, uti pon|tifici col. 
Romano est erit, #eraque militaria ea omni|a merita sunto. De 
auspiciis quaeque ad eas res per|tinebunt augurum iuris dictio iudi- 
catio esto. Eis||que pontificib(us) auguribusque ludis, quot publice 5 
ma|gistratus facient, et cum ei pontific(es) augures sa|cra publica 
c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) facient, togas praetextas haben|di ius 
potestasq(ue) esto, eisque pontificib(us) augurib(us)|q(ue) ludos 
gladiatoresq(ue) inter decuriones specta||re ius potestasque esto. | 10 

[ 301 3 


LXVII. Quicumque pontif(ex) quique augur c(oloniae) G(ene- 
tivae) I(uliae) post h(anc) l(egem) da|tam in conlegium pontific(um) 
augurumq(ue) in demor|tui damnative loco h(ac) l(ege) lectus co- 
optatusve erit, | is pontif(ex) augurq(ue) in c(olonia) lul(ia) in con- 

15 legium [sic] pontifex || augurq(ue) esto, ita uti qui optuma lege in 
quaque | colon(ia) pontif(ices) auguresq(ue) sunt erunt Neve quis | 
quern in conlegium pontificum kapito suble|gito cooptato nisi tune 
cum minus tribus ponjtificib(us) ex iis, qui c(oloniae) G(enetivae) 

20 sunt, erunt. Neve quis quern || in conlegium augurum sublegito 
cooptato ni|si turn cum minus tribus auguribus ex eis, qui | colon(iae) 
G(enetivae) I(uliae) sunt, erunt | 

LXVII(I). Ilviri praef(ectus)ve comitia pontific(um) augurum- 
q(ue), quos h(ac) lege | facere oportebit, ita habeto, prodinto, ita 

25 uti || nvir(um) creare facere sufficere h(ac) l(ege) o(portebit). | 

LXIX. Ilviri qui post colon(iam) deduc/am primi erunt, ei in 
su|o mag(istratu) et quicumq(ue) nvir(i) in colon(ia) lul(ia) erunt, 
ii in | diebus LX proxumis, quibus eum mag(istratum) gerere coejpe- 

30 rint, ad decuriones referunto, cum non minus || xx aderunt, uti 
redemptori redemptoribusque, | qui ea redempta habebunt quae ad 
sacra resq(ue) | divinas opus erunt, pecunia ex lege locationis | 
adtribuatur solvaturq(ue). Neve quisquam rem ali|am at decuriones 

35 referunto neve quot decuri||onum decret(um) faciunto antequam 

eis redemp|toribus pecunia ex lege locationis attribuatur | solvaturve 

d(ecurionum) d(ecreto), dum ne minus xxx atsint, cum | e(a) r(es) 

Tab. n, cori sulatur. Quot ita decreverint, ei nvir(i) | redemptori redemptori- 

bus attribuendum | solvendumque curato, dum ne ex ea pecunia | 

solvant adtribuant, quam pecuniam ex h(ac) l(ege) | adez sacra, quae 

5 in colon(ia) aliove quo loco pu||blice fiant, dari adtribui oportebit. | 

(L)XX. Ilviri quicuwque erunt praeter eos, qui primi | post 

h(anc) l(egem) facti erunt, <ei> in suo mag(istratu) munus lujdosve 

scaenicos lovi lunoni Minervae deis | deabusq(ue) quadriduom 

10 m(aiore) p(arte) diei, quot eius fie||ri />0terit, arbitratu decurionum 
faciunjto inque eis ludis eoque munere unusquisjque eorum de sua 
pecunia ne minus HS oo oo | consumito et ex pecunia publica in 
sing(ulos) | nvir(os) d(um) t(axat) HS oo oo sumere consumere 

15 liceto, it||que eis s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) facere liceto, dum ne quis ex 
ea | pecun(ia) sumat neve adtributionem faciat, | quam pecuniam 

[ 302 ] 


h(ac) l(ege) ad ea sacra, quae in co|lon(ia) aliove quo loco public* 
fient, dari | adtribui oportebit. || 

LXXL Aediles quicumq(ue) erunt in suo mag(istratu) munus 20 
lu|dos scaenicos lovi lunoni Minervae tri|duom maiore parte diei, 
quot eius fieri pote|rit, et unum diem in circo aut in foro Veneri | 
faciunto, inque eis ludis eoque munere unus||quisque eorum de sua 25 
pecunia ne minus HS oo oo | consumito deve publico in sing(ulos) 
aedil(es) HS oo | sumere liceto, eamq(ue) pecuniam nvir prae- 
f(ectusve) | dandam adtribuendam curanto itque iis | s(ine) f(raude) 
s(ua) c(apere) liceto. || 

LXXII. Quotcumque pecuniae stipis nomine in aedis | sacras 30 
datum inlatum erit, quot eius pecuni|ae eis sacr/'s superfuerit, quae 
sacra, uti h(ac) l(ege) d(ata) | oportebit, ei deo deaeve, cuius ea aedes 
erit, fac|ta/Wri#t, ne quis facito neve curato neve interce||dito, quo 35 
minus in ea aede consumatur, ad | quam aedem ea pecunia stipis 
nomine da|ta conlata erit, neve quis earn pecuniam alio | consumito 
ne^* quis facito, quo magis in | alia re consumatur. | col. n 

LXXII I. Ne quis intra fines oppidi colon(iae)ve, qua aratro | 
circumductum erit, hominem rnortuom | inferto neve ibi humato 
neve urito neve homi||nis mortui monimentum acdificato. Si quis | 5 
adversus ea fecerit, is c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) lul(iae) 
HS loo d(are) d(amnas) esto, | eiusque pecuniae yui volet petitio 
persecu|tio <exactioq(ue)> esto. Itque quot inaedificatum | erit 
nvir aedil(is)ve dimoliendum curanto. Si || adversus ea mortuus 10 
inlatus positusve erit, | expianto uti oportebit. | 

LXXIV. Ne quis ustrinam novam, ubi homo mortuus | com- 
bustus non erit, propius oppidum pas|sus D facito. Qui adversus 
ea fecerit, HS 100 c(olonis) || c(oloniae) G(enetivae) lul(iae) d(are) 15 
d(amnas) esto, eiusque pecuniae qui volet peti|tio persecutioq(ue) 
ex h(ac) l(ege) esto. | 

LXXV. Ne quis in oppido colon(ia) lul(ia) aedificium detegito | 
neve demolito neve disturbato, nisi si praedes | nvir(um) arbitratu 
dederit se redaedificaturum, aut || nisi decuriones decreverint, dum 20 
ne minus L ad|sint, cum e(a) r(es) consulatur. Si quis adversus ea 
fece(rit), | q(uanti) e(a) r(es) e(rit), t(antam) p(ecuniam) c(olonis) 
c(oloniae) G(enetivae) lul(iae) d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), eiusq(ue) 
pecuniae qui volet pe|titio persecutioq(ue) ex h(ac) l(ege) esto. | 

[ 303 ] 


25 LXXVI. Figlinas teglarias maions tegularum ccc tegu||larium- 
q(ue) in oppido colon(ia) lul(ia) ne quis habeto. Qui j habuerit it 
aedificium isque locus publicus | col(oniae) Iuli(ae) esto, eiusq(ue) 
aedificii quicumque in c(olonia) | G(enetiva) lul(ia) i(ure) d(icundo) 
p(raerit), s(ine) d(olo) m(alo) earn pecuniam in publicum redi^ito. | 
LXXVI I. Si quis vias fossas cloacas nvir aedil(is)ve publice || 

30 facere inmittere commutare aedificare mu|nire intra eos fines, qui 
colon(iae) lul(iae) erunt, volet, | quot eius sine iniuria privatorum 
fiet, it is face | re liceto. | 

LXXIIX. Quae viae publicae itinerave publica sunt fuerunt || 

35 intra eos fines, qui colon(iae) dati erunt, quicumq(ue) | limites quae- 
que viae quaeque itinera per eos a|gros sunt erunt fueruntve, eae 
viae eique limites | eaque itinera publica sunto. | 

40 LXXIX. Qui fluvi rivi fontes lacus aquae stagna paludes || sunt 

col. in in agro, qui colon(is) hw/usc(e) colon(iae) divisus | erit, ad eos rivos 

fontes lacus aquas<que> stajgna paludes itus actus aquae haustus iis 

item | esto, qui eum agrum habebunt possidebunt, uti | iisfuit,quieum 

5 agrum habuerunt possederunt. || Itemque iis, qui eum agrum habent 

possident ha|bebunt possidebunt, itineris aquarum lex ius|que esto. | 

LXXX. Quot cuique negotii publice in colon(ia) de decu- 

10 r(ionum) sen|tentia datum erit, is cui negotium datum erit e||ius 
rei rationem decurionib(us) reddito referto|que in dieb(us) CL 
proxumis quibus it negotium confecerit | quibusve it negotium gerere 
desierit, quot eius | fieri poterit s(ine) d(olo) m(alo). | 

LXXXI. Quicumque nvir(i) aed(iles)ve colon(iae) lul(iae) 

15 erunt, ii scribis || suis, qui pecuniam publicam colonorumque | 
rationes scripturus erit, antequam tabulas | publicas scribet <trac- 
tetve) in contione palam | luci nundinis in forum ius iurandum 

20 adigi|to per lovem deosque Penates "sese pecuniam pu||blicam eius 
colon(iae) concustoditurum rationes|que veras habiturum esse, u(ti) 
q(uod) r(ecte) f(actum) e(sse) v(olet) s(ine) d(olo) m(alo), ne|que 
se fraudem per litteras facturum esse sc(ientem) | d(olo) m(alo)." 
Uti quisque scriba ita iuraverit, in tabulas | publicas referatur facito. 

25 Qui ita non iurave||rit, is tabulas publicas ne scribito neve aes | 
apparitorium mercedemque ob e(am) r(em) kapito. | Qui ius iuran- 
dum non adegerit, ei HS IDD mul|ta esto, eiusq(ue) pecuniae yui 
volet petitio per|secutioq(ue) ex h(ac) l(ege) esto. || 

[ 304 ] 


LXXXIL Qui agri quaeque silvae quaeq(ue) aedificia c(olonis) 30 
c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) | quibus publice utantur, data ad- 
tributa ejrunt, ne quis eos agros neve eas silvas ven|dito neve locate 
longius quam in quinquennium, neve ad decuriones referto neve 
decu||rionum consultum facito, quo ei agri eaeve | silvae veneant 35 
aliterve locentur. Neve si ve nierint, itcirco minus c(oloniae) 
G(enetivae) lul(iae) sunto. Quique iis | rebus frucAis erit, quot 
se emisse dicat, is in | iuga sing(ula) inque annos sing(ulos) HS c 
c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) lul(iae) d(are) d(amnas) || esto, 40 
eiusque pecuniae qw/ volet petitio persecutioq(ue) ex h(ac) /(ege) esto. 

(Deest tabulae pars dimidia) 

XCL Si quis ex hac I ege decurio augur pontifex coloniae G(enetivae) 
Iul(iae) factus creatusve \ erit, turn quicumque decurio augur pon- Tab.m, 
tifex huiusque | col(oniae) domicilium in ea col(onia) oppido pro- 
piusve it oppidum p(assus) oo | non habebit annis v proxumis, unde 
pignus eius quot satis | sit capi possit, is in ea col(onia) augur ponti- 
fex) decurio ne es||to quiyue nviri in ea col(onia) erunt, eius nomen 5 
de decurio|nibus sacerdotibusque de tabulis publicis eximendum | 
curanto, u(ti) q(uod) r(ecte) f(actum) e(sse) v(olent), idq(ue) eos 
nvir(os) s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) f(acere) l(iceto). | 

XCII. Ilviri quicumque in ea colon(ia) mag(istratum) habebunt, 
ei de legatio|nibus publice mittendis ad decuriones referunto, cum || 
m(aior) p(ars) decurion(um) eius colon(iae) aderit, quotque de his 10 
rebus | maior pars eorum qui turn aderunt constituent, | it ius 
ratumque esto. Quamque legationem ex h(ac) l(ege) exve | d(e- 
curionum) d(ecreto), quot ex h(ac) l(ege) factum erit, obire opor- 
tuerit | neque obierit qui lectus erit, is pro se vicarium ex eo || 
ordine, uti hac lege de(curionum)ve decreto d(ari) o(portet), dato. 15 
Ni ita dederit, in | res sing(ulas) quotiens ita non fecerit, HS CCIDD 
colon(is) hu|iusque colon(iae) d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), eiusque pe- 
cuniae q\i\ volet petitio | persecutioque esto. | 

XCII I. Quicumque nvir post colon(iam) deductam factus 
creatusve || erit quive praef(ectus) ab nvir(o) e lege huius coloniae 20 
relic|tus erit, is de loco publico neve pro loco publico neve | ab 
redemptor^ mancipe praed(e)ve donum munus mercedem | aliutve 
quid kapito neve accipito neve facito, quo | quid ex ea re at se 

AMA [ 305 ] 20 


25 suorumve quern perveniat Qui at || versus ea fecerit, is HS CCIDD 
CCIDD c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) lul(iae) d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), 
eius|que pecuniae yui vo/et petitio persecutioque esto. | 

XCIIII. Ne quis in hac colon(ia) ius dicito neve cuius in ea 

colon(ia) | iuris dictio esto nisi nvir(i) aut quern nvir praef(ectum) | 

reliquerit, aut aedil(is), uti h(ac) l(ege) o(portebit). Neve quis pro 

30 eo || imper(io) potestat(e)ve facito, quo quis in ea colonia | ius dicat, 

nisi quern ex h(ac) l(ege) dicere oporte&Y. | 

XCV. Qui reciperatores dati erunt, si eo die quo iussi erunt | 
non iudicabunt, nvir prae/(ectus)ve ubi e(a) r(es) a(gitur) eos rec(i- 
col.ii peratores) | eumque cuius resa(gitur) adesse iubeto diemque cerjtum 
dicito, quo die atsint, usque ateo, dum e(a) r(es) | iudicata erit, 
facitoque, uti e(a) r(es) in diebus xx | proxumis, quibus d(e) e(a) r(e) 
rec(iperatores) dati iussive e|runt iudicare, iudic(etur), u(ti) q(uod) 

5 r(ecte) f(actum) e(sse) v(olet). Testibusque || in earn rem publice 
dum ta^rat h(ominibus) xx, qui colon(i) | incolaeve erunt, quibus /s 
qui rem quaere|/ volet, denuntietur facito. Quibusq(ue) ita tesjti- 
monium ^/enuntiatum erit quique in tesjtimonio dicendo nominati 

10 erunt, curato, || uti at it iudicium atsint. Testimoniumq(ue) | si 
quis quit earum rer(um), quae res turn age|tur, sciet aut audierit, 
iuratus dicat faci|to, uti q(uod) r(ecte) f(actum) e(sse) v(olet), dum 
ne omnino amplius | h(omines) xx in iudicia singula testimonium 

15 dice||re cogantur. Neve quem invitum testimo|nium dicere cogito, 
q\i\ ei, cuia r(es) turn age|tur, gener socer, vitricus privignus, pa- 
tron(us) | lib(ertus), consobrinus sit propiusve eum ea cogna|tione 

20 atfinitateve contingat. Si nvir || praef(ectus)ve qui ea re colon(is) 
petet,nonade|ritobeamrem,quotei morbus sonticus, | vadimonium, 
iudicium, sacrificium, funus | familiare feriaeve demcales erunt, 

25 quo | minus adesse possit sive is propter magistra||tus potestatemve 
p(opuli) R(omani) minus atesse poterit: | quo magis eo absente de 
eo cui /s negotium | facesset recip(eratores) sortiantur reiciantur 
res iujdicetur, ex h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). Si privatus petet 

30 et is, cum | de ea re iudicium fieri oportebit, non aderit || neque 
arbitratu nvir(i) praef(ecti)ve ubi e(a) r(es) a(getur) excu|sabitur ei 
harum quam causam esse, quo minus | atesse possit, morbum sonti- 
cum, vadimonium, | iudicium, sacrificium, funus familiare, feriaj | 

35 demcales eumve propter mag(istratus) potestatemve || p(opuli) 

[ 306 ] 


R(omani) atesse non posse: post ei earum rerum^ quarum | h(ac) 
l(ege) quaestio erit, actio ne esto. Deq(ue) e(a) r(e) siremps | lex col. m 
resque esto, qu#s/ si neque iudices dfelecti neq(ue) reel p (era tores) | 
in earn rem dati essent. | 

XCVI. Si quis decurio eius colon(iae) ab nvir(o) praef(ecto)ve 
postulabit | \it\ ad decuriones referatur, de pecunia publica de||que 5 
multis poenisque deque locis agris aedificis | publicis quo facto 
qutferi iudicarive oporteat: turn | nvir qu/ve iure dicundo praerit d(e) 
e(a) r(e) primo | quoque die decuriones consulito decurionum|que 
consultum facito fiat, cum non minus m(aior) p(ars) || decurionum 10 
atsit, cum ea re* consuletur. Vti m(aior) p(ars) | decurionum, qui 
turn aderint, censuer(int), ita ius | ratumque esto. | 

XCVII. Ne quis nvir neve quis pro potestate in ea colon(ia) | 
facito neve ad decuriones referto neve d(ecurionum) d(ecretum) 
facito || fiat, quo quis colon(is) colon(iae) patron(us) sit atoptetur|ve 15 
praeter eum, cut c(olonis) a(grorum) d(andorum) a(tsignandorum) 
i(us) ex lege lulia est, eum|que, qui earn colon(iam) deduxerit, liberos 
posterosyue | eorum, nisi de m(aioris) p(artis) decurion(um) qui. turn 
Werunt per tabellam j sententitf, cum non minus L aderunt, cum 
e(a) r(es) || consuletur. Qui atversus ea feceri/, HS IDD colon(is) | 20 
eius colon(iae) d(are) d(amnas) esto, eiusque pecuniae colon(is) eius 
colon(iae) ^ui volet petitio esto. | 

XCVIIL Quamcumque munitionem decuriones huius|ce co- 
loniae decreverint, si m(aior) p(ars) decurionum || atfuerit, cum e(a) 25 
r(es) consuletur, earn munitionem | fieri liceto, dum ne amplius in 
annos sing(ulos) in|que homines singulos puberes operas quinas et | 
in <iumenta plaustraria) iuga sing(ula) operas ter|nas decernant. 
Eique munitioni aed(iles) qui turn || erunt ex d(ecurionum) d(ecreto) 30 
praesunto. Vti decuriones censu|erint, ita muniendum curanto, dum 
ne in|vito eius opera exigatur, qui minor annor(um) xini | aut 
maior annor(um) LX natus erit. Qui in ea colon(ia) | intrave eius 
colon(iae) finis domiciliumpraedi||umvehabebit neque eius colon(iae) 35 
colon(us) erit, is ei|dem munitioni uti colon(us) par^to. | 

XCVI 1 1 1. Quae aquae publicae in oppido colon(iae) Gen- 
(etivae) | adducentur, nvir, qui turn erunt, ad decuriones, | cum col. iv 
duae partes aderunt, referto, per quos agros | aquam ducere liceat. 
Qua p#rs maior decurion(um), | qui turn aderunt, duci decreverint, 

[ 307 ] 


5 dum ne || per it aedificium, quot non eius rei causa factum | sit, 
aqua ducatur, per eos agros aquam ducere | i(us) p(otestas)que esto, 
neve quis facito, quo minus ita | aqua ducatur. | 

10 C. Si quis colon(us) aquam in privatum caducam ducere || volet 
isque at nvir(um) adierit postulabitj^ue, uti ad decurion(es) referat, 
turn is nvir, a quo | ita postulatum erit, ad decuriones, cum non 
mi | mis xxxx aderunt, referto. Si decuriones m(aior) p(ars) qui | 

15 turn atfuerint, aquam caducam in privatum duci || censuerint, ita 

eaaquautatur > quotsinepriva|t/iniuriafiat,i(us)potest(as)quee(sto). | 

CL Quicumque comitia magistrates creandis subrogan|dis 

habebit, is ne quern eis comitis pro tribu acci|pito neve renuntiato 

20 neve renuntiari iubeto, || qui in e^rum qu# causa erit, e qua eum 
h(ac) l(ege) in colon(ia) | decurionem nominari creari inve decu- 
rionibus | esse non oporteat non liceat. | 

CIL Ilvir qui h(ac) l(ege) quaeret iud(icium)^^ exercebit, quod 
iudicium | uti uno die fiat h(ac) l(ege) prestitatum non est, ne quis || 

25 eorum ante h(oram) / neve post horam xi diei quaerito | neve 
iudicium exerceto. Isque rivir in singul(os) | accusatores, qui eorum 
delator erit, ei h(oras) mi, qui | subscriptor erit, h(oras) n accusandi 
potest(atem) facito. Si | quis accusator de suo tempore alteri con- 

30 cesserit, || quot eius cuique concessum erit, eo amplius cui | con- 
cessum erit dicendi potest(atem) facito. Qui de suo | tempore alteri 
concesserit, quot eius cuique conces|serit, eo minus ei dicendi 
potest(atem) facito. Quot horas | omnino omnib(us) accusatorib(us) 

35 in sing(ulas) actiones di||cendi potest(atem) fieri oporteb^t), totidem 
horas et alter |um tan turn reo quive pro eo dicet in sing(ulas) 
col. v actiones | dicendi potest(atem) facito. | 

CIIL Quicumque in col(onia) Genet(iva) nvir praef(ectus)ve 
i(ure) d(icundo) praerit, eum colon(os) | incolasque contributosy^^ 
quocumque tempore colon(iae) fin(ium) | ^^wdendorum causa 
5 armatos educere decurion(es) censuerint, || quot m(aior) p(ars) qui 
turn aderunt decreverint, id e(i) s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) f(acere) l(iceto). 
jE/jque nvir(o) aut quern nvir armatis praefecerit idem | ius eadem- 
que anim^dversio esto, uti tr(ibuno) mil(itum) p(opuli) R(omani) 
in | exercitu p(opuli) R(omani) est, itque e(i) s(ine) f(raude) s(ua) 
f(acere) l(iceto) i(us) p(otestas)que e(sto), dum it, quot | m(aior) 
p(ars) decurionum decreverit, qui turn aderunt, fiat. || 

[ 308 ] 


CIIII. Qui limites decumaniqu* intra fines c(oloniae) G(ene- 10 
tivae) deducti factijque erunt, quaecum(que) fossae limitales in eo 
agro erunt, | qui iussu C. Caesaris dict(atoris) imp(eratoris) et lege 
Antonia senat(us)que | c(onsultis) pl(ebi)que sc(itis) ager datus at- 
signatus erit, ne quis limites | decumanosque opsaeptos neve quit 
immolitum neve || quit ibi opsaeptum habeto, neve eos arato, neve 15 
eis fossas | opturato neve opsaepito, quo minus suo itinere aqua | ire 
fluere possit. Si quis atversus ea quit fecerit, is in | res sing(ulas), 
quotienscumq(ue) fecerit, HS oo c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) 
I(uliae) d(are) d(amnas) esto, | eiusq(ue) pecun(iae) ^ui volet 
petitio p(ersecutio)q(ue) esto. || 

CV. Si quis quern decurion(um) indignum loci aut ordinis 20 
de|curionatus esse dicet, praeterquam quot libertinus | erit, et ab 
nvir(o) postulabitur, uti de ea re iudicijum reddatur, nvir, quo de 
ea re in ius aditum erit, | ius dicito iudiciaque reddito. Isque 
decurio, || qui iudicio condemnatus erit, postea decurio | ne esto 25 
neve in decurionibus sententiam dici|to neve nvir(atum) neve aedili- 
tatem petito neve | quis uvir comitis suffragio eius rationem | 
habeto neve nvir(um) neve aedilem renunti||ato neve renuntiari 30 

CVI. Quicumque c(olonus) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) erit, quae 
iussu C. Caesaris dict(atoris) ded(ucta) | est, ne que/w in ea col(onia) 
coetum conventum con'mrationem . . . 

(Deest tabula continent capita leg. CVI fin. 
CVll-CXXll. CXXlllprinc.} 

CXXIll. Ilvir ad quern d(e) e(a) r(e) in ius aditum erit, ubi 
iudicibus, apud quos e(a) r(es) agetur, maiori parti eorum planum 
factum non erit y eum de quo iudicium datum est decurionis loco indignum T b 
esse, eum \ qui accusabitur ab his iudicibus eo iudicio absolvi | iubeto. col. 
Qui ita absolutus erit, quod iudicium />raevari| cation (is) causa 
/artum non sit, is eo iudicio h(ac) l(ege) absolutus esto. | 

CXXIIII. Si quis decurio c(oloniae) G(enetivae) decurionem 
c(oloniae) G(enetivae) h(ac) l(ege) de indignitate ac||cusabit, eumque 5 
quem accusabit eo iudicio h(ac) l(ege) condemnalrit, is <qui quern 
eo iudicio ex h(ac) l(ege) condemnarit,) si volet, | in eius locum 
qui condemnatus erit sententiam dice) re, ex h(ac) l(ege) liceto itque 

[ 309 ] 


eum (sine) f(raude) s(ua) iure lege recteq(ue) fajcere liceto, eiusque 

10 is locus in decurionibus sen||tentiae dicendae rogandae h(ac) l(ege) 
esto. | 

CXXV. Quicumque locus ludis decurionibus datus rf/signatus | 
relictusve erit, ex quo loco decuriones ludos spectare | o(portebit) > 
ne quis in eo loco nisi qui turn decurio c(oloniae) G(enetivae) erit, 
qui|ve turn magistratus imperium potestatemve colonor(um) || 

15 suffragio <geret> iussuque C. Caesaris dict(atoris) co(n)s(ulis) prove | 
co(n)s(ule) habebit, quive pro quo imperio potestateve turn | in 
c(olonia) Gen(etiva) erit, quibusque loo?s in decurionum loco | ex 
d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) col(oniae) Gen(etivae) d(ari) o(portebit), 
quod decuriones derr(everint), cum non minus | dimidia pars de- 

20 curionum adfuerit cum e(a) r(es) consulta erit, || <ne quis praeter 
eos, qui (supra) s(cripti) s(unt), qui locus decurionibus da|tus at- 
signatus relictusve erit, in eo loco) sedeto neve | quis alium in ea 
loca sessum ducito neve sessum duel \ iubeto sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo). 
Si quis adversux ea sederit s(ciens) d(olo) m(alo) sive \ quis atversus 

25 ea sessum duxerit ducive iusserit s(ciens) d(olo) m(alo), || is in res 
sing(ulas), quotienscumque quit d(e) e(a) r(e) atversus ea | fecerit, 
HS IDD c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) d(are) d(amnas) 
esto, eiusque pecuniar qui eorum | volet rec(iperatorio) iudicio aput 
nvir(um) praef(ectum)ve actio petitio perse|cutio ex h(ac) l(ege) 
<i(us) potest(as)que> e(sto). | 

CXXVI. Ilvir, aed(ilis), praef(ectus) quicumque c(oloniae) 

30 G(enetivae) I(uliae) ludos scaenicos faciet, si||ve quis alius c(oloniae) 
G(enetivae) I(uliae) ludos scaenicos faciet, colonos Geneti|vos 
incolasque hospitesy^ atventoresque ita sessum du|cito, <ita locum 
dato distribuito atsignato,) uti d(e) e(a) r(e) <de | eo loco dando 
atsignando) decuriones, cum non min(us) | L <decuriones>, cum 

35 e(a) r(es) c(onsuletur), in decurionibus adfuerint, || decreverint 
statuerint s(ine) d(olo) m(alo). Quot ita ab decurionib(us) | <de 
loco dando atsignando) statutaw decretum erit, | it h(ac) l(ege) i(us) 
r(atum)q(ue) esto. Neve is qui ludos faciet aliter aliove | modo 
sessum ducito neve duci iubeto neve locum dato | new dari iubeto 

40 neve locum attribuito neve attribui || iubeto neve locum atsignato 
neve atsignari iubeto ne|ve quit facito, qu^? aliter aliove modo, adque 
uti | locus datus atsignatus attributusve erit, sedeant, ne|ve facito, 

[ 310 ] 


quo quis alieno loco sedeat, sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo). Qui atver|sus 
ea fecerit, is in res singulas, quotienjrumque quit || atversus ea 45 
fecerit, HS IDD c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) d(are) 
d(amnas) e(sto), eiuj^e pecuni|ae cui volet rec(iperatorio) iudicio 
a/>ut nvir(um) pr#ef(ectum)ve actio pe|titio persecutioque h(ac) 
l(ege) <ius potestasque) esto. | 

CXXVII. Quicumque ludi scaenici c(oloniae) G(enetivae) 
I(uliae) fient, ne quis in or |chestram ludorum spectandor(um) causa col. n 
praeter ma(gistratum) | prove mag(istratu) p(opuli) R(omani), quive 
i(ure) d(icundo) p(raerit) et si quis senator p(opuli) R(omani) est 
erit | fuerit, et si quis senatoris f(ilius) p(opuli) R(omani) est erit 
fuerit, et si | quis praef(ectus) fabrum eius mag(istratus) prove 
magistrate, || qui provinc(iarum) Hispaniar(um) ulteriorem <Bae- 5 
ticae pra|erit> optinebit, en't, et quos ex h(ac) l(ege) decurion(um) 
loco | <decurionem> sedere oportet oportebit, <praeter eos | qui supra 
s(cripti) s(unt) ne quis in orchestram ludorum spectan|dorum causa) 
sedeto, (neve quisque mag(istratus) prove mag(istratu) || p(opuli) 10 
R(omani) q(ui) i(ure) d(icundo) p(raerit) ducito), neve quern quis 
sessum ducito, | neve in eo loco sedere sinito, uti q(uod) r(ecte) 
f(acturn) e(sse) ^(olet) s(ine) d(olo) m(alo). | 

CXXVIII. Il(vir) acd(ilis) pra^f(ectus) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) 
I(uliae) quicumque erit, is suo quoque anno mag(istratu) | im- 
perioq(ue) facito curato, quod eius fieri poterit, j u(ti) q(uod) r(ecte) 
f(actum) ^(sse) v(olet) s(ine) d(olo) m(alo) mag(istri) ad fana templa 
delubra, quera || ad modum decuriones censuerin(/) <suo qu0|que 15 
anno) fiant e/qu(t) <d(ecurionum) d(ecreto)) suo quoque anno 
ludos circenses, sacr/ficia pulvinariaque | facienda curent, que^z 
<vd modum <quitquit> de iis | rebus, mag(istris) creandis, /w(dis) 
circensibus facien||dis, sacrificiis procurandis, pulvinaribus fajciendis 20 
decuriones statuerint decreverint, | <ea omnia ita fiant). Deque 
iis omnibus rebus | quae s(upra) s(criptae) s(unt) quotcumque de- 
curiones statuerint | decreverint, it ius ratumque esto, eiq(ue) 
omnes, || at quos ea res pertinebit, quot quemque eorum | ex h(ac) 25 
l(ege) facere oportebit, faciunto s(ine) d(olo) m(alo). Si quis | at- 
versus ea fecerit quotiensrwmque quit atver|sus ea fecerit, HS CCIDD 
c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), eius- 
que pecun(iae) | qui eorum volet rec(iperatorio) iudic(io) aput 


30 iivir(um) || praef(ectum)w actio petitio persecutioq(ue) e(x) h(ac) 
l(ege) | <ius pot(estas)) esto. | 

CXXIX. Ilvir(i) aediles praef(ectus) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) 
I(uliae) quicumq(#)e erunt decurionesq(ue) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) 
I(uliae) quijcumq^e erunt, ii omnes d(ecurionum) d(ecretis) dili- 
genter parento optemperanto s(ine) d(olo) m(alo) fa|ciuntoque uti 
quot quemq(uc) eor(um) decurionum d(ecreto) agere facere o(porte- 

35 bit) ea om||nia agant faciant, u(ti) q(uod) r(ecte) f(actum) e(sse) 
v(olent) s(ine) d(olo) m(alo). Si quis ita non fecerit sive quit at- 
ver|sus ea fecerit sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo), is in res sing(ulas) HS ccioo 
c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), 
eiusque pecuniae qm \ eor(um) volet rec(iperatorio) iudic(io) aput 
nvir(um) praef(ectum)ve actio petitio persecutioque ex h(ac) l(ege) | 
<ius potestasque) e(sto). | 

CXXX. Ne quis nvir aed(ilis) praef(ectus) c(oloniae) G(ene- 
tivae) I(uliae) quicunque erit ad decurion(es) c(oloniae) G(ene- 

40 tivae) referto neve decurion(es) || consulito neve d(ecretum) 
d(ecurionum) facito neve d(e) e(a) r(e) in tabulas p(ublicas) referto 
neve referri iubeto | neve quis decur(io) d(e) e(a) r(e), q(ua) d(e) 
r(e) a(getur), in decurionib(us) sententiam dicito neve d(ecretum) 
d(ecurionum) scri|bito, neve in tabulas puMicas referto, neve refe- 
rundum curato, quo quis | senator senatorisve f(ilius) p(opuli) 
R(omani) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) patronus atoptetur sumatur fiat 
nisi de tri|um partium d(ecurionum) <d(ecreto)> senten^(/W) per 

45 tabellam <facito> et nisi de eo homine, <de quo || turn referetur con- 
suletur, d(ecretuni) d(ecurionum) fiat), qui, cum | e(a) r(es) a(getur), 
in Italiam sine imperio privatus | erit. Si quis adversus ea ad dec\i- 
rion(es) rettulerit d(ecurionum)ve d(ecretum) fecerit faciendumve | 
curaverit inve tabulas pub/icas rettulerit referrive iusserit sive quis 
in decurionib(us) | sententiam di#erit d(ecurionum)ve d(ecretum) 

5 o scripserit inve tabulas publicas rettulerit referendumve || curaverit, 
in res sing(ulas), quotienscumque quit atversus ea fecerit, is HS CCCIOOD 
c(olonis) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) | d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), 
eiusque pecuniae yui eorum volet rec(iperatorio) iudi(cio) aput 
nvir(um) interregem praef(ectum) actio | petitio persecutioque ex 
h(ac) l(ege) <i(us) /><^/est(as)que> e(sto). | 

CXXXI. Ne quis nvir <aed(ilis)> praef(ectus) c(oloniae) G(ene- 

[ 3" ] 


tivae) I(ullae) quicumque erit ad decuriones c(oloniae) G(enetivae) 
referto neve d(ecuriones) conjsulito neve d(ecretum) d(ecurionum) col. m 
facito neve d(e) e(a) r(e) in tabulas publicas referto neve referri 
iubeto | neve quis decurio d(e) e(a) r(e) in decurionib(us) sententiam 
dicito neve d(ecretum) d(ecurionum) scribito ne|ve in tabulas 
publicas referto neve referundum curato, quo quis senator | sena- 
toruve f(ilius) p(opuli) R(omani) c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) 
hospes atoptetur, hospitium tesserave hospi/a//s cum || quo fi#/, msi 5 
de maioris p(artis) decurionum sententia per tabellam <facito> et 
nisi | de co Aomine, <de quo turn referetur consuletur, d(ecretum) 
d(ecurionum) fiat), qui, cum e(a) r(es) a(getur), in Italiam | sine 
imperio privatus erit. Si quis adversus ea ad decuriones rettulerit 
d(ecretum)ve | d(ecurionum) fe^erit faciendumve curaverit inve 
tabulas publicas rettulerit re| Arrive iusserit sive quis in decurionibus 
sententiam dixerit d(ecretum)ve d(ecurionum) || scripserit mve ro 
tabul(as) public(as) rettulerit referendumve curaverit, | is in res 
sing(ulas) quotienscumque quit adversus ea fecerit, HS CCIOD c(olonis) 
c(oloniae) | G(enetivae) luliae d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), eiusque 
pecuniae yui eorum volet recu(peratorio) iudic(io) | aput nvir(um) 
pr#ef(ectum) ve actio petitio persecutioque h(ac) l(ege) <ius potest(as)- 
que> esto. | 

CXXXII. Ne quis in c(olonia) G(enetiva) post h(anc) l(egem) 
datam petitor kandidatus, || quicumque in c(olonia) G(enetiva) 15 
I(ulia) mag(istratum) petet, wagistratus^^ peten|di causa in eo 
anno, quo quisque anno petitor | kandidatus mag(istratum) petet 
petiturusve erit, (mag(istratus) pe|tendi> convivia facito neve at 
cenam quera | vocato neve convivium habeto neve facito s(ciens) 
d(olo) m(alo), || quo quu suae petitionis causa conviw'um habeat | 2 o 
ad cenamve quew vocet, praeter <dum> quod ip|se kandidatus 
petitor in eo anno, quo mag(istratum) petat, | vocar/V dum taxat 
in dies sing(ulos) h(ominum) vim <convi^/um | habeto), si volet, 
s(ine) d(olo) m(alo). Neve quis petitor kandidatus || donum munus 25 
aliudve quit det largiatur peti|tionis causa sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo). 
Neve quis alterius petitionis | causa convivia facito neve quern ad 
cenam voca|to neve convivium habeto, neve quis alterius pejtitionis 
causa cui quit donum munus aliutve quit \\ dato donato largito 30 
sc(iens) d(olo) m(alo). Si quis atversus ea | fecerit, HS IDD c(olonis) 

[ 313 ] 


c(oloniae) G(enetivae) I(uliae) d(are) d(amnas) e(sto), eiusque pe- 
cuniae yui eor(um) volet | rec(iperatorio) iudic(io) aput nvir(um) 
praef(ectum)i;e actio petitio per|sec(utio)que ex h(ac) l(ege) <i(us) 
potest(as)que> esto. | 

CXXXIII. Qui col(oni) Gen(etivi) lul(ienses) h(ac) l(ege) sunt 

35 erunt, eorum omnium uxo||res, quae in c(olonia) G(enetiva) I(ulia) 
h(ac) l(ege) sunt, <eae mulieres) legibus c(oloniae) G(enetivae) 
I(uliae) vi|rique parento iuraque <ex h(ac) l(ege)>, quaecumque | 
in hac lege scripta sunt, omnium rerum ex h(ac) l(ege) habewjto 
s(ine) d(olo) m(alo). | 

CXXXI V. Ne quis nvir <aedil(is)> praefectus c(oloniae) G(ene- 

40 tivae), quicumque erit, post || h(anc) l(egem) ad decuriones c(oloniae) 
G(enetivae) referto neve decuriones consu|lito neve d(ecretum) 
d(ecurionum) facito neve d(e) e(a) r(e) in tabulas publicas re|ferto 
neve referri iubeto neve quis decurio, cum e(a) | r(es) a(getur), in 
decurionibus sententiam dicito neve d(ecretum) d(ecurionum) | 

45 scribito neve in tabulas publicas referto new || referendum curato, 
quo cui pecunia publica atiutve \ quid honoris habendi causa mune- 
risve^W//)^/jlicendi^)r^i;estatuadandaponendadetur donetur. . . . 
Four bronze tablets found in 1870 and 1874 on the site of Urso 
in Baetica, now in the museum at Madrid. Each tablet had ori- 
ginally five columns of text, as the third tablet, preserved in its 
entirety, shows. From each of the other three extant tablets two 
columns are missing. The tablets containing the early part of the 
law, perhaps four in number, and the eighth tablet, have not been 
found. Numbers added at a later date on the margins of the tablets 
indicate the division into chapters. Probably these tablets were 
not engraved until after Caesar's death, cf. Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 
i, 208 ^f>, Hubner, Ex. scr. ep. 805. Dessau places the date of 
the engraving in the reign of Domitian. The letters on the fourth 
tablet are smaller than those on the others and in it there are many 
redundant words and phrases which we have enclosed in obtuse- 
angled brackets. Some scholars think that this tablet takes the 
place of one that had been lost. Gradenwitz (Site. Ber. d. Heidel- 
berger Akad. 1920, Heft 17) explains the unevenness in form and 
manner found in this law as well as in the charters of Malaca and 
Salpensa on the theory that we have an Urtext and a Beischrift. 


For a summary of the chapters, cf. Mommsen, op. cit. 1,211 ff., 
247 ff. For a translation into English, cf. Hardy, Three Spanish 
Charters, 23 ff. 

The law in its original form must have been drafted by Julius 
Caesar. In chap. 125 reference is made to any local magistrate 
holding office iussu C. Caesaris dictatoris consults prove consule 
(cf. chap. 66), and similarly in chap. 106 we read quae (i.e. colonid) 
iussu C. Caesaris dictatoris deduct a est. Caesar is nowhere called 
divus, so that the measure antedates the autumn of 43 B.C. (cf. 
Mommsen, St. R. 2, 756, n. i). It probably belongs to the early 
part of the year 44 B.C. (cf. Mommsen, Ges. Schr. I, 207), and may 
have been one of the bills which Antony found, or maintained that 
he found, among the papers of Caesar (cf. Cic. PhiL 5. 4. 10). The 
founding of the colony was authorized iussu C. Caesaris dictatoris 
imperatoris et lege Antonia senatusque consultis plebique scitis (chap. 
104). This measure is then a lex data authorized by a S.C. and 
plebiscite, proposed by Antony. 

The greater part of the document deals with strictly domestic 
matters, but certain chapters have to do with the relations which 
the municipality bore to the central government, or to Roman 
citizens, and only with those are we concerned here. The legationes 
referred to in chap. 92 would include embassies sent to Rome, to 
the provincial governor, or to the provincial council (cf. p. 150, 
n. 7 and no. 126). They sometimes played an important part in 
calling the grievances of a city or a province to the attention of the 
central government, but such missions were often useless and were 
expensive, and ultimately Vespasian limited the number of members 
to three (Dig. 50. /. 5). In Urso, since the acceptance of an appoint- 
ment was compulsory, probably legatt met their own expenses. 

For the part which patroni took in composing local difficulties 
and in representing a municipality in Rome, cf. Mommsen, St. R. 
3, i 202 ff. and the documents in this book dealing with public 
arbitration. Chapp. 97 and 130 prescribe rules for the election of 
patroni at Urso. The man who led the colonists out and the man 
who assigned land to them, together with their descendants, are 
made patrons ex officio. Other patrons must be chosen in the senate 
when at least fifty members are present (cf. chap. 97). Mommsen 

[ 315 ] 


believed (Ges. Schr. I, 344^.) that the approval of the local popular 
assembly was also necessary for the choice of a patron, but cf. 
Hardy, op. cit. 108, n. 29. Chap. 130 requires the approval of 
seventy-five of the one hundred decurions, voting with secret 
ballots, for the election of a Roman senator or his son (cf. no. 64), 
and absolutely prohibits the election of such a person unless he is 
a private citizen in Italy sine imperio. All the governors of the 
provinces were at this time senators, and Rome wished to prevent 
municipalities from currying favour with the governor of their 
province by electing him to a position of honor. The same objection 
would attach in a less degree to the election of any senator, because 
he might at any time be put in charge of a province. The Album 
of Canusium of A.D. 223 (no. 136) has a list of thirty-nine patroni^ 
of whom thirty-one are Roman senators and eight are knights. 
Mommsen finds (Ges. Schr. I, 239) only three cases of patrons 
who were senators with the imperiwn. Perhaps they were elected 
after the termination of their imperium (cf. Marquardt, St. l^erw. 
I, 189, n. i). 

Patronatus and hospittum are often confused in the inscriptions 
(cf. Wilmanns, nos. 2850, 2852), but for the distinction between 
them, cf. Leonhard, R.E. 8, 2496. The fact that a senate could 
elect an hospes when only a majority of the decurions was present 
(chap. 131) shows that the position was held in less esteem than 
that of patronus. The same discrimination is made against Roman 
senators and their sons in this case as holds in the case of the patron. 

Of the privileges granted to Roman officials and Roman senators 
the most noteworthy is the assignment to them of seats in the 
orchestra of the theatre (chap. 127). 

The provision in chap. 103 which authorized the duovir, on 
receiving the approval of a majority of the decurions present at a 
meeting, "to call to arms colonists, resident aliens, and attributed 
persons" for the defense of the colony is surprising and without 
parallel in other charters, unless we accept Bormann's bold con- 
jecture (Jahreshefte d. bst. archdol. Inst. 9 (1906), 315^.) for the 
Fragm. legis Lauriscensis (Bruns, 33*7) and read uter (i.e. ex uviris) 
posted municipes incolasque . . . .causa armatos educet. There is no 
intimation even that the municipal senate required the authorization 

[ 316 j 


of the provincial governor in taking this step. Very likely this was 
a sovereign power granted to municipalities on the frontier or in 
unruly districts. Reference is made to the members of these armed 
forces in various inscriptions (cf. hastiferi civitatts Mattiacorum, 
GIL. xm, 7317). They could be quickly summoned to repress 
an uprising and to hold an attacking enemy in check until the 
legions could arrive (cf. Cagnat, De municipalibus et provincialism 
militiis in imperto Romano^ 93), and perhaps the provincial militia 
(Hirschfeld, 392 ff.} was made up of these municipal levies (cf. 
Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 6, 154). It was in harmony with Roman 
practices in Italy to put this levy in charge of the local magistrate 
(cf. Mommsen, St. R. 3, 675, n. 3). 



(49-42 a. Chr.) 

CIL. i, 205 = xi, 1146; Bruns, 16; Girard, p. 72; Ricco- 
bono, p. 135. 

. . .iussum iudicatumve erit, id ratum ne esto; quodque quis|que Tab. i 
quomq(ue) d. e. r. decernet interd^icetve seive sponsionem | fierei 
iudicarme iubebit iudiciumve quod d. e. r. dabit, is | in id decretum 
interdictum sponsionem iudicium exceptio|]nem addito addive 5 
iubeto: "Q. d. r. operis novi nuntiationem | iivir, imvir prae- 
fectusve eius municipei non remeisserit." | 

XX. Qua de re quisque, et a quo, in Gallia Cisalpeina damnei 
infectei | ex formula restipularei satisve accipere volet, et ab eo 
quei | ibei i(ure) d(eicundo)/>(r^^r/V) postulaverit, idque non k(alum- 
niae) k(aussa) se facere iuraverit: turn is, quo || d. e. r. in ius aditum 10 
erit, eum, quei in ius eductus erit, d. e. r. ex formu|la repromittere 
et, sei satis darei debebit, satis dare iubeto de|cernito. Quei eorum 
ita non repromeisserit aut non satis dede|rit, sei quid interim damni 
datum factumve ex ea re aut ob e(am) r(em) eo|ve nomine erit, 
quam ob rem, utei damnei infectei repromissio || satisve datio fierei 15 
mbeatur^ postulatum erit: turn mag(istratus) prove mag(istratu) 
nvir | imvir praefec(tus)ve, quoquomque d. e. r. in ius aditum erit, 
d. e. r. ita ius | deicito iudicia dato iudicareque iubeto cogito, proinde 

[ 317 ] 


atque sei | d. e. r., quom ita postulatum esset, damn^i infectei ex 
formula | recte repromissum satisve datum esset. D. e. r. quod ita 

20 iudicium || datum iudicareve iussum iudicatumve erit, ius ratumque 
esto, | dum in ea verba, sei damnei infectei repromissum non erit, 
iudi|cium det itaque iudicare iubeat: "I(udex) e(sto). S(ei), ant<?- 
quam id iudicium | q. d. r. a(gitur) factum est, Q. Licinius damni 
infectei eo nomine q. d. | r. a(gitur) earn stipulationem, quam is 

25 quei Romae inter peregrei||nos ius deicet in albo propositam habet, 
L. Seio repromeississet: | turn quicquid eum Q. Licinium ex ea 
stipulatione L. Seio d(are) f(acere) opor|teret ex f(ide) b(ona) d(um)- 
t(axaf) HS e(ius) i(udex) Q. Licinium L. Seio, sei ex decreto nvir(ei) | 
imvir(ei) praefec(tei)ve Mutinensis, quod eius is nvir nnvir prae- 
fec(tus)|ve ex lege Rubria, seive id pl(ebei)ve sc(itum) est, decre- 

30 verit, Q. Licinius eo || nomine qua d. r. a(gitur) L. Seio damnei 
infectei repromittere no|luit, c(ondemnato) ; s(ei) n(on) p(aret), 
a(bsolvito)"; autsei damnei infectei satis datum non erit, | in ea verba 
iudicium det: "I(udex) e(sto). S(ei), antequam id iudicium q. d. r. 
a(gitur) | ykctum est, Q. Licinius damnei infectei eo nomine q. d. r. 
a(gitur) ea | stipulatione, quam is quei Romae inter peregrinos ius 

35 deicet || in albo propositam habet, L. Seio satis dedisset: turn q(uic)- 
q(uid) eum | Q. Licinium ex ea stipulatione L. Seio d(are) f(acere) 
oporteret ex f(ide) b(ona) d(um) t(axat), | e(ius) i(udex) Q. Liciniuw 
L. Seio, sei ex decreto nvir(ei) inivir(ei) praef(ectei)ve Muti|nensis, 
quod eius is nvir inivir praefect(us)^ ex lege Rubria, sei|ve id 
pl(ebei)ve sc(itum) est, decreverit, Q. Licinius eo nomine q. d. r. 

40 a(gitur) || L. Seio damnei infectei satis dare noluit, c(ondemnato) ; 
s(ei) n(on) p(aret), a(bsolvito)"; dum nvir | inivir i(ure) d(eicundo) 
praefec(tus)ve d. e. r. ius ita deicat curetve, utei ea nojmina et 
municipium colonia locus in eo iudicio, quod ex ieis | quae proxsume 
s(cripta) s(unt) accipi^tur, includ^ntur concipiantur, | quae includei 

45 concipei s(ine) d(olo) m(alo) oporteret debebitve, ne quid || ei quei 
d. e. r. aget petetve captionei ob e(am) r(em) aut eo nomine esse | 
possit: neive ea nomina, qua^ in earum qua formula quae s(upra) | 
s(cripta) s(unt), aut Mutinaw in eo iudicio includei concipei curet, 
nise/, | iei, quos inter id iudicium accipietur leisve contestabitur, | 
ieis nominibus fuerint, quae in earum qua formula s(upra) s(cripta) 

50 s(uni) y || et nisei sei Mutinae ea res agetur; neive quis mag(istratus) 

[ 318 ] 


prove mag(istratu), | neive quis pro quo imperio potestateve erit, 
intercedito nei|ve quid aliud facito, quo minus de ea re ita iudicium 
detur | iudiceturque. | Tab. n 

XXL A quoquomq(ue) pecunia certa credita, signata forma 
p(ublica) p(opulei) R(omanei), in eorum quo o. m. c. p. | f. v. c. c. 
t. ve, quae sunt eruntve in Gallia Cisalpeina, petetur, quae res non | 
pluris HS xv erit, sei is earn pecuniam in iure apud eum, quei ibei 
i(ure) d(eicundo) p(raerit), ei quei || earn petet, aut ei quoius nomine 5 
ab eo petetur, d(are) o(portere) debereve se confessus | erit, neque 
id quod confessus erit solvet satisve faciet, aut se sponsione | iudicio- 
que ute/ oportebit non defendet, seive is ibei d. e. r. in iure non | 
respondent, neque d. e. r. sponsionem faciet neque iudicio utei 
oportebit | se defender, turn de eo, a quo ea pecunia peteita erit, 
deque eo, quoi earn || pecuniam d(arei) o(portebit), s(iremps) res 10 
lex ius caussaque o(mnibus) o(mnium) r(erum) esto atque utei 
esset esseve | oporteret, sei is, quei ita confessus erit, aut d. e. r. 
non respondent aut se | sponsione iudicioque utei oportebit non 
defenderit, eius pecuniae iei | quei earn suo nomine petierit quoive 
earn d(arei) o(portebit), ex iudicieis dateis iudi|careve recte iusseis 
iure lege damnatus esset fuisset. Qunque quomque || nvir nnvir 15 
praefec(tus)ve /bei i(ure) d(eicundo) p(raerit), is eum, quei ita quid 
confessus erit | neque id solvet satisve faciet, cumve quei se sponsione 
iudiciove utei | oportebit non defenderit aut in iure non responderit 
neque id solvet | satisve faciet, t(antae) p(ecuniar), quanta ea pecunia 
erit de qua turn inter eos am|bigetur, dum t(axat) us xv s(ine) 
f(raude) s(ua) duci iubeto; queique eorum quern, ad quern || ea res 20 
pertinebit, duxserit, id ei fraudi poenaeve ne esto: quodque ita 
fac|tum actum iussum erit, id ius ratumque esto. ^uo minus in 
eum, quei ita | vadimonium Romam ex decreto eius, quei ibei i(ure) 
d(eicundo) p(raerit), non promeisserit | aut vindicem locupletem 
ita non dederit, ob e(am) r(em) iudicium recup(erationem) is, quei | 
ibei i(ure) d(eicundo) p(raerit), ex h. 1. det iudicareique d. e. r. ibei 
curet, ex h. 1. n(ihilum) r(ogatur). || 

XXII. A quo quid praeter pecuniam certam creditam, signatam 25 
forma p(ublica) p(opulei) R(omanei), | in eorum quo o. m. c. p. 
/. v. c. c. t. ve quae sunt eruntve in Gallia cis Alpeis, | petetur, 
quodve quom eo agetur, quae res non pluris HS xv erit, et sei | ea 

C 3*9 ] 


res erit, de qua re omnei pecunia ibei ius deicei iudiciave darei ex 
h. 1. o(portebit), | sei is earn rem, quae ita ab eo petetur deve ea re 

30 cum eo agetur, ei quei earn rent || petet deve ea re age?, aut iei quoius 
nomine ab eo petetur quomve eo age|tur in iure apud eum, quei 
ibei i(ure) d(eicundo) p(raerit), d(are)/(tf<r*r*) p(raestare) restituereve 
oportere aut | se debere, eiusve earn rem esse aut se earn habere, 
eamve rem de | qua arguetur se fecisse obligatumve se eius rei 
noxsiaeve esse confesjsus erit deixseritve neque d. e. r. satis utei 

35 oportebit faciet aut, sei || sponsionem fierei oportebit, sponsionem 
non faciet, aut non restituet, | neque se iudicio utei oportebit de- 
fendet, aut sei d. e. r. in iure j nihil respondent, neque d. e. r. se 
iudicio utei oportebit defender. | turn de eo a quo ea res ita petetur 
quomve eo d. e. r. ita agetur, deque | eo, quoi earn rem d(arei) 

40 f(ierei) p(raestarei) restitui satisve d. e. r. fierei oportebit, || s(iremps) 
l(ex) r(es) i(us) c(aussa)q(ue) o(mnibus) o(mnium) r(erum) e(sto), 
atque utei esset esseve oporteret, sei is, quei ita | quid earum rerum 
confessus erit aut d. e. r. non respondent neq(ue) | se iudicio utei 
oportebit defenderit, de ieis rebus Romae apud pr(aetorem) | eumve 
quei de ieis rebus Romae i(ure) d(eicundo) p(rae)esset in iure con- 
fessus esset, | aut ibei d. e. r. nihil respondisset aut iudicio se non 

45 defendisset; || p(raetor)q(ue) isve quei d(e) e(is) r(ebus) Romae i(ure) 
d(eicundo) p(raerit) in eum et in heredem eius d(e) e(is) r(ebus) 
om|nibus ita ius deicito decernito eosque duci bona eorum possideri | 
proscreibeive veneireque iubeto, ac sei is heresve eius d. e. r. in | 
iure apud eum pr(aetorem) eumve quei Romae i(ure) d(eicundo) 
praesse/, confessus es|set aut d. e. r. nihil respondisse/ neque se 

50 iudicio utei oportuis||set defendisset; dum ne quis d. e. r. nisei 
pr(aetor) isve quei Romae i(ure) d(eicundo) p(raerit) | eorum quoius 
bona possiderei proscreibei veneire duceique | eum iubeat. | 

XXIII. Queiquomque in eorum quo o. m. c. p. f. v. c. c. t. ve 
quae in Galjlia Cisalpeina sunt erunt, i(ure) d(eicundo) p(raerit), is 

55 inter eos, quei de fami||lirf erceiscunda deividunda iudiciurn sibei 
darei reddeive | in eorum quo o. m. c. p. f. v. c. c. t. ve, quae s(upra) 
s(cripta) s(unt), postu|laverint, ita ius deicito decernito iudicia da to 
iudicare | iubeto, utei in eo o. m. c. p. f. v. c .c. t. ve, in quo is, 
quoius de bonds agetur, domictlium habuerit 

Bronze tablet found in 1760 in the ruins of Veleia, now in 

[ 320 ] 


Parma. The number (mi) at the top of the tablet shows that three 
tablets which preceded it have been lost. Many scholars think that 
this law was passed after 42 B.C., when Gallia Cisalpina was in- 
corporated into Italy. This is the view held by Savigny (Verm. 
Schr. 3, 319-326, 377-400), by Huschke (Gaius, Beitrage, 203- 
242), and by Karlowa (i, 440443). Mommsen on the other 
hand maintains (Ges. Schr. I, 175-191) that it belongs to the year 
49 B.C. The reference to the region concerned in chap, xx as Gallia 
Cisalpina naturally points to a date earlier than 42 B.C. Mommsen 
holds also that the fragmentum Atestinum (no. 28) is a part of this 
law. Now in the second paragraph of this fragment a lex rogata 
of L. Rose! us is cited by day and month, but the year is not men- 
tioned. From this fact he concludes that the lex de Gall. Cis. must 
have been passed later in the same year. The lex Roscia, mentioned 
in the Atcstine fragment, belongs, he thinks, to the year 49 B.C., 
in which year L. Roscius was one of the praetors (Caes. B.C. I. 3). 
The validityof the principal argument rests, therefore, on the relation 
which the fragment of Este bears to our law, and on the attribution 
of the lex Roscia to the praetor, Roscius. For the serious difficulty 
which this explanation involves, cf. Pais, Ricerche sulla storia e sul 
diritto puhhlico di Roma, Serie terza, 389. The theory of Nap, who 
ascribes the law to Sulla's dictatorship (Themis, 1913, 194^.), is ade- 
quately refuted by Hardy, Some Problems in Roman History^ 207 ff. 

For the connection between the Atestine fragment and our law, 
cf. Hardy, Six Roman Laws, 110-124, especially I23/. Whether 
our law is identical with the lex Rubria, cited twice in the formulae 
in chap, xx, is a matter of high dispute. If it is identical with our 
law, it is a lex rogata. Mommsen, however, observes (loc. cit.) that 
the other laws promulgated for a similar purpose were leges datae, 
and that there are no formulae in our law to prove that it is a lex 
rogata. He is therefore inclined to think that it is a lex data and 
consequently distinct from the lex Rubria. For the opposite view, cf. 
Kipp, Gesch. d. Quellen d. rbm. Rechts 3 , 42, n. I o; Hardy, op. cit. 1 24. 

This inscription is of great importance for two reasons: (i) It 
gives us the procedure at the beginning of the formulary period 
(on the formulae, cf. Wenger, R.E. 6, 2859^*.); (2) It gives us the 
most precise information which we have of the lines of demarcation 

AMA [ 321 ] 21 


between the competence of the central government and of local 
magistrates in Italian communities, made up of Roman citizens, 
in judicial matters. We are concerned here with the second point 
only. The law applied to Gallia Cisalpina the same system long in 
vogue elsewhere in Italy. It was probably called forth by the grant 
of Roman citizenship to Gallia Cisalpina. 

Following in part the system, as analyzed by Hardy (op. cit. 
117119), we find that it seems to cover the following points: 
(i) The municipal magistrate has full competence in matters in- 
volving 15,000 sesterces or less; (2) Even where larger amounts 
are at stake, he may take initial proceedings; (3) In certain cases 
he has jurisdiction irrespective of the amount claimed; (4) In the 
absence of a cautio damni infecti (cf. Leonhard, R.E. 3, 1816) the 
municipal magistrate may take action similar to that which would 
have been taken by the praetor peregrinus in like circumstances; 
(5) In certain cases of condemnation for debt, the municipal magis- 
trate may provisionally arrest the debtor and make him addlctus 
(cf. Leist, R.E. I, 352). For the practice at Venafrum, cf. no. 33. 
The local magistrates mentioned are the duoviri y quattuorviri^ and 
praefecti (chapp. xix, xx). The praefectus is an official appointed 
in the absence of the regular magistrate. The duovirs were the usual 
magistrates in colonies, the quattuorvirs in municipia (cf. p. 59). 
For a description of the several communities mentioned in the early 
part of chap, xxi, cf. pp. ioff. The phrase neive quis magistrates 
prove magistratu neive quis pro quo imperio potestateve erit, etc. 
(chap, xx, end) seems to refer to the proconsul because Gallia 
Cisalpina continued to be a province until 42 B.C. Certain phrases 
indicated by abbreviations in this inscription are d(e) e(a) r(e) 9 qu(a) 
d(e) r(e) y h(ac) l(ege) or the grammatical forms needed in the con- 
nection, and o(ppido) m(unicipio} c(olonia) p(raefectura) f(oro) v(eico) 
c(onciliabuld) c(astello) t(erritorio) or the appropriate grammatical 

(49-42 a. Chr.) 

Notice degli scavi y 1880, 213; Bruns, 17; Girard, p. 78; Ric- 
cobono, p. 140. 

Quei post hanc legem rogatam in eorum quo oppido municipio colonia 

[ 322 ] 


praefectura foro veico conciliabulo castello territoriove, quae in Gallic* 
Cisalpeina sunt eruntve, ad iivlrum imvirum praefectumve in indi- 
cium fiduciae aut pro socio aut mandati aut tutelae sue nomine quodve 
ipse earum rerum | quid gessisse dicetur, addwcetur, aut quod furti, 
quod ad ho|minem liberum liberamve pertinere deicatur, aut iniurij- 
arum agatur: sei is, a quo petetur quomve quo agetur, d(e) || e(a) 5 
r(e) in eo municipio colonia praefectura iudicio certa|re volet et 
si ea res HS CCIDD minorisve erit, quo minus ibei d(e) e(a) r(e) | 
iudex arbiterve addicatur detur, quove minus ibei d(e) e(a) r(e) iudi- 
cium ita | feiat, utei de ieis rebus, quibus ex h(ac) l(ege) iudicia | data 
erunt,iudicium fierei exerceri oportebit, ex h. 1. n(ihilum) r(ogatur). || 

Quoius rei in qu^que municipio colonia praefectura | quoiusque 10 
nvir(i) eiusve, qui ibei lege foedere pl(ebei)ve sc(ito) s(enatus)|ve 
c(onsulto) institutove iure dicundo praefuit, ante legem, sei|ve illud 
pl(ebei) sc(itum) est, quod L. Roscius a. d. v eid. Mart, populum | 
plebemve rogavit, quod privatim ambigetur, Juris dict/j|o iudicis 15 
arbitri recuperatorum datio addiction /&/Y | quantaeque rei pequni- 
aeve fuit: eius rei pcquniaeve \ quo magis privato Romae revocatio 
sit qu0^ l/H/'nus quei ibei i(ure) d(icundo) p(raerit) d(e) e(a) r(e) 
ius dicat iudicew arbitrumve det \ utei ante legem, sive illud pl(ebei) 
sc(itum) est, quod L. Roscius a. d. \\ v eidus Mart, populum plebeww 20 
rogavit y \ ab eo quei ibei i(ure] d(icundo) p(raerif) ius did \\idicem 
arbitrumve dari oportuit, ex h(ac} l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur). 

Bronze tablet found in 1880 at Ateste in Cisalpine Gaul, now 
in the museum at Este. Mommsen held that it contained a fragment 
of the lex de Gallia Cisalpina (no. 27); cf. Ges. Schr. I, 175-191. 
This view has been opposed by Alibrandi, Opere giuridiche, I, 395 ff.\ 
Karlowa, I, 441 ; Kriiger, Gesch. d. Quellen^ 73; Esmein, Melanges 
d'histoire et du droit^ 269-292; Appleton, Revue generate du droit, 
24 (1900), 193^"., and Kipp, Gesch. d. Quellen*, 42, n. 10. The 
main objection to Mommsen's theory lies in the fact that the lex 
de Gall. Cis. grants municipal magistrates full competence in suits 
involving not more than 15,000 sesterces, whereas in this fragment, 
in certain cases, at least, the maximum is set at 10,000. The date 
is uncertain. Some editors think that it deals with the enfranchise- 
ment of all communities south of the Po after the Social war, in 
spite of the fact that the tablet was found in the Transpadane region, 

[ 3 2 3 ] 


and they attribute the lex Roscia^ mentioned in it, to Roscius, 
tribune in 67 B.C. Those who regard the fragment as part of the 
lex de Gall. Cis. put it in the year 49 B.C., while still others date it 
as not earlier than 49 or later than 42 B.C. 

The purpose of the law was to make certain changes in com- 
petence necessitated by the granting of new rights. In some cases, 
at least, involving a sum not exceeding 10,000 sesterces, the accused 
has the option of bringing his case before the municipal magistrate, 
and revocatio Romae is limited, temporarily or permanently, in its 
application in some circumstances. 

The nine classes of communities which are mentioned in no. 27, 
chap, xxi, and which Mommsen has included among the missing 
words at the beginning of this fragment, are reduced to three in the 
second paragraph of the fragment, because a local magistrate had 
judicial competence in a muntcipium, colonia> and praefectura only. 
The powers of a local magistrate may rest on any one of three 
different bases, according to the second paragraph of the fragment. 
They may be granted by a treaty (Joedere\ by an enactment of the 
popular assembly or senate (lege y plebei scito, senatus con suit o), or 
traditional usage (instituto) may be continued in force without 
special legal authorization. The phrase ante legem, seive illud plebei 
scitum esty quod L. Roscius. . .rogavit implies that the Roscian law 
was a pleblscitum^ and, consequently makes it difficult to connect 
this measure with the praetor L. Roscius of 49 B.C., but Mommsen 
believes that the bill in question was submitted to the plebeian 
assembly by the praetor (St. R. 3, 1 59, n. 2), and he calls attention 
to a parallel phrase in the lex Eantina (OIL. i, 197, 11. 7, 15). 



(39-35 a. Chr.) 

CIG. 2737; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 5; Bruns, 43; Ditt. Or. Gr. 
453-455; Riccobono, p. 217. 

i>TcJw09 Mdp/cov vios avro/epdrcop vTraro? (ITTO- 

TO ft' Kal [TO J \ Tft5z/] TpltoV dvSp&V ^[9] | TftJl/ 

5 Srj/jLocricov 7rpa\yfjLdrcov Scard^eco^ \\ TlXapa&eayv teal 'A<po|8e*- 
criecov ap%ov<rt,v \ ftovXfjt, SIJ/JLWI, %aipeiv. \ El eppaxjtfe, v av 

[ 324 ] 


10 e%ot* vyiavco e Ka avros pera TOV crrp 

15 Arjfirjrpiov u/Lterepo? | TrpecrfievTij*;, 7rc\/ji\eo'Tara 7re<f)pov\\Ti,tca>$ 

TCOV r^9 7ro'|\ea>9 vfAtov 7rpay\/j,dT(ov, ov /JLOVOV \ r^p/ceardrj eiri 

20 rot9 I yeyovo&iv olfcovo\\[fjLr)]fjt,aat,v, d\\d Kal \ rjfJLas Trapetcd- 

25 \<T\V 6/9 TO TOV yyO\VOTO<t V/JitV 7Tl\Kpi/jLaTO$ Kal S6y/JLa\\TO<? 

Kal opKiov Kal vo\fjiov dvri,7r<f)fovr]/JL\va e/c roov 8r;/iocria)^ | 
30 8e\ra)v ea7rocrTei\\ai, v/juew ra dvTiypa\\<j>a. 'E^)' 0^9 e7raive\cra$ 

TOV 2<6\a)va /jia\\\ov aTreSef'dfjL'rjv <T\%OV re ev T069 VTT* e/xoO | 
35 yeivuxTKonevois, \\ oSt Kal ra KaOiJKOvra | anr^^kpicra <f)t,\dv\6pci)7ray 
4 afyov r) r yrj\o'd/jLVO$ TOV av\&pa r?79 ^ rj/jidiv Tet||/i^9, vfJielv T 

eVi root eecv TOLOVTOV TroXeir^z/. v E(7Tti/ 8e ai/rt- 

45 ypa<f>a \ TGOV yeyovoTtov v\\^Lelv <f>t\av0pu)7ra)v \ TCL 

fj,va- | a i//xa9 fiov\o/j,ai \ eV ro?9 $7]/jLocrioL<; \ rot9 Trap' u 

re ?roXXa \vpovs evau, 
[re] &t,Kaia)i Kal rat9 [Kpicreacv ra?9 l&iat,? TTJV 7ro|\6i/] 

v xprjo-ffai pr)Te eyyvyv e[/ 
a Soy pa TI \ K\a\ Ke\evdiv o(JLO\oyiv' a re rti/a 

5 IlXfapaa-eOcrt /cai 'A<^po86a-tef}||crt] 

<TVV%o!>prjo'av avv^copyjaovcriVyTa^vTa irdvTa Kvpia elvai \ 7]ei^- 
a6ai. ( O/Lt060)9 re dpecrKetv TJJI <TvyK\iJTa)i y TOV Brj^ov TOV 
Il\a[pa(Ta)v Kal 'A<f)po&icri\]a)v TTJV \v0piav Kal TTJV dre- 


T69 7TO\lTLa T0)l 

T v/jLO)i ecTTiV) [/;Tt9 7rapa TOI) I &I]/JLO]V TOV 'Pcofiiaicov TTJV 
e\v0piav Kal TTJV aTt\iav 6^66 <f>i\rj T Kal o*i;[/i/Lta^09 7<ye||- 
10 vijTai. f/ O re] T/JLVO$ Oca? ' AtypoSiT'yjs ev 7ro\L IlXapa&ecov 
Kal *A(f>po$t,ari,e(i)[v Ka0ipa)Tai> TOVTO | acrvKov ejcrra) TavT&i 
(ran) 8iKaia)L raur/Jt T SeiaiftaifjiOvLat,, alt St/auau /cat 7;t Setcrft- 

, KVK\COC re 


T07T09 a(7i;\09 CTTO). 7TO)9 T 77 7TO\t9 *a O 

[ 325 ] 


op&v 7rpo<roSo>i> 7rpo9 rrjv <f>t,\iav ro[0 
15 rj\6ov 9 ravra \\ e^fc><r]> tcparwo-w yjp&wrai /capTri^covrai re 
iravTtov 7rpayi^drd)v arefXefc oz/T9. M^Se TWO, \ <f>6pov S]ta nva 
airiav e/mWi/ &t,86vai, jjLijSe [G^vveiGfyepew 6$eXa>ow, [dXX* 
avrol 7ra\cri rour]o^9 /car' ovcrav /iera raOra ev eavrols /cvp&><rtv 
%p(v[Tai, fcapTTL^covrat KpaTuxnv. "ESofei/J. 

From Aphrodisias in Caria. The union of two cities in a common 
polity is not unusual. Plarasa and Aphrodisias issued coinage 
jointly (Head, Hist. Numm. 530). The third document engraved 
on the stone is the decree of the senate ratifying the acts of the 
triumvirs. Aphrodisias is mentioned by Pliny (N.H. 5. 109) as 
a free state. By this decree freedom was conferred, and exemption 
from tribute granted. The citizens could not be compelled to give 
bail for appearance before a court in Rome. The shrine of Aphrodite 
enjoyed the same rights of asylum as that of Diana at Ephesus (cf. 
Tac. Ann. 3. 61). The revenues from the territorium were granted 
to the city without any liability to tribute. For the status of free 
cities, cf. pp. 39 /. 


(31 a. Chr.) 

Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 6; Ditt. Syll* 768. 

l^alaap Oeov y \ov\iov \ vios viraros re TO rpirov 
MuXacreaw apyovGi /3ov\\rji, SIJ/JLWI ^aLpeiv. Et 
5 eppaxrQe /c[a]||Xeo<? av e^oi* teal avrbs 8e /xera T[OI)] | err par ev- 
/xaro9 vyiawov. Ka[l Trpo^repov /xez/ ij&rj Trepl rrj? /var[a(7i^oi/]|- 
0*779 u/ta? TU^T;? Trpoo-eTref/Lt-v/rare] | pot, /cai vvv 7rapayvo/jLva)[v 
10 TcSi^] || TrpccrftevTcSv, OuXta8[ou. .] 

. .9 T&V 7ro\6/i,iW TTTalaai KOL Trparr][6ei\\cr7j<; rfjs 7ro\eft>9, 
TroXXoi'9 pev a^/xaXft)To[u9J | a7ro/3aXu/ 7roXtra9, ov/c 
/iez/ (frovev ^[i^]|ra9, TW&S Be teal <rvvKaTa<j>\e<ye(v 
15 T*79 T&v TroXe/xtft)!/ w/jLorrjTOS ov8e rwv \ vawv ovSe rc3i/ iepwv 
ayicordrMV a\7roo"XOfjLvr)<;' vTr&i%av Se pot, KOI Trepl \ TT;? X* 
r^9 \\i]\aTr) nevrjs KOI rdov \ eVau 


ravra Trdo-rj? Tei/jirjs KOI %apt|[T09 dgiovs avSpa? 


From Mylasa. Unfortunately the major portion of the letter 
of Augustus is lost, and we cannot determine precisely its content, 
but it is probable that the Mylasans were given the rank of a free 
city (Pliny, N.H. 5. 108; cf. CIG. 2695 b). The city of Mylasa 
had been occupied by the troops of Labienus nine years before. 
During a festival the soldiers were massacred by the citizens, who 
abandoned their homes when Labienus advanced against them. 
He rased the city to the ground (Cassius Dio, 48. 26; Strabo, 14. 2. 
24, p. 660). C/.nos. 32,133- 

(31 a. Chr.) 

Notizfe degli scavij 1915, 139; An. ep. 1916, no. 60. 

Decuria I Q. Arrunti | Surai, cur(atoribus) | Q. Arruntio || 
C. Sabello | rig(neratore) T. Arrio. | Sum(ma) h(ominum) xcux. | 5 
In sing(ulos) hom(ines) | op(eris) p(edes) XLIII. S||(umma) p(edum) 10 

Found at Saletto di Montagnana near Este in 1907. It refers 
to work performed by veterans, after the battle of Actium,in building 
levees along the river Atesis near Ateste. Another inscription from 
Ateste refers to the same matter (OIL. v, 2603). To carry out the 
work the soldiers were divided into squads, each one of them bearing 
the name of some leader. This squad took the name of Q. Arruntius 
Sura, who was also one of the overseers. In it were ninety-eight 
men, and to each man forty-three feet were assigned. This is one 
of the earliest of those great constructive works carried out by 
soldiers, from which the provincial cities profited so much under 
the empire, and of which we have so many records in Africa; cf. 
nos. 72 and 103. 



(ca. 30 a. Chr.) 

Le Bas-Waddington, 3. 442-443; CIG. 2695^, 2700*. 

teal [r]av vwep rwv 8rjfjLO<rla)v \ 

[Tri]fCTTj(ri<;(?) 669 re roi/ KQWOV [rfjs] TroXeax; tcap<f)i<T pov TIV&V 
aj/a[<7|ra]o-e*9 vjrovoOeveiv, ol? Si; xav eVt[Tp6']7ra>/iei> (fropoXoyelv 

[ 327 1 


e/9 SovXiicrjv irepi^ov^&iav, ^psiv fiev av 

5 l'(ra>9 r)i e$[opco]||(7iu alcr^pa re teal rjp&v dvdj-cos, a[8u]yaT09 8e 
av O/40D9 tfatfe[V]|o9 yevoiro 7rpd\_<T]<Tovai SrjfjLoo-iat rovs Brj/jiooriac 
fcvpiovs, M[^]|T ^/o^artoi/ //^re 7rpo<ro8a>[z;] SijfjLocricov vTrotcei- 

T\d)V eTTipeiTLV \Oy[i~eiV TOU9 1/09 

/cdcrrov ..... U9 ra9 re 


p6t,7rLCi)v 6TO/yLt6>9 [z/]| afapovcnj?, o Brj /cal avrol 

cortov [6/9] | XP^ a S^Moo'ia r^i/ TTO\(,V v 
TO " 

From Mylasa. Cf. no. 30. This document appears to be a part 
of a letter of some emperor or governor relative to the collection of 
taxes or tribute, but the interpretation is exceedingly obscure. The 
letter probably belongs to a period not much later than no. 30. 


(17-11 a. Chr.) 

CIL. x, 4842; Bruns, 77; Girard, p. 186; Riccobono, p. 316; 
Dessau, 5743. 

Edictum imp(eratoris) C&esaris Augusti (finis huius versus et prae- 
terea sex fere toti evanuerunf) ......................... 

Venafranorum nomine ....... ius sit //Watque. 

Qui rivi specus saepta fontes ............. que aquae ducend?& 

10 reficiundae || causa supra infrave libram/<7r// aedificati struct! sunt, 
sive quod | aliut opus eius aquae ducendae ref/V/undae causa supra 
infrave libram | factum est, uti quidquid earum r^rum factum est, 
ita esse habere itaque | reficere reponere restituere resarcire semel 
saepius, fistulas canales | tubos ponere, aperturam committere, sive 

15 quid aliut eius aquae ducen||dae causa opus *rit, facere placet: dum 
qui locus ager in fundo, qui | Q. Sirini (?) L. f. Ter. est esseve 
dicitur, et in fundo, qui L. Pompei M. f. Ter. Sullae | est esseve 
dicitur, maceria saeptus est, per quern locum subve quo loco | specus 
eius aquae p^r^nit, ne ea maceria parsve quae eius maceriae | aliter 

20 diruatar to//atur, quam specus reficiundi aut inspiciendi cau||sa; 
neve quid ibi />n'vati sit, quominus ea aqua ire fluere ducive poss/V | 



Dextra sinistraque circa eum rivom circaque | ea opera, quae 

eius aquas, ducendae causa facta sunt, octonos pedes agrum | <L>acuom 
esse placet, per quem locum Venafranis eive, qui Venafranorum | 

nomine , iter facere eius aquae ducendae operumve eius 

aquae || ductus faciendorum reficiendorum causa, quod eius s(ine) 25 
d(olo) m(alo) fiat, ius sit liceatque, | quaeque earm r^rum cuius 
faciendae reficiendae causa opus erunt, quo | proxume poterit 
advehere adferre adportare, quaeque inde exempta erunt, | quam 
maxime aequaliter dextra sinistraque p. vm iacere, dum ob eas res 
damn/ | infecti iurato promittatur. Earumque rerum omnium ita 
habendarum || colon(is) (?) Ven^/r^nis ius potestatemque esse 30 
placet, dum ne ob id opus domi|nus eorum cuius agri locive, per 
quem agrum locumve ea aqua ire fluere | ducive solet, invius fiat; 
neve ob id opus minus ex agro suo in partem agri | quam transire 
transferre transvertere recte possit; neve rui eorum, per quo|rum 
agros ea aqua ducitur, eum aquae ductum corrumpere abducere 
aver||tere facereve, quo minus ea aqua in oppidum Venafranorum 35 
recte duci | fluere possit, liceat. [ 

Quaeque aqua in oppidum Venafranorum it fluit ducitur, earn 
aquam | distribuere discribere vendundi causa, aut ei rei vectigal 
inponere constijtuere, nviro nviris praefec(to) praefectis eius co- 
loniae ex maioris partis decuri||onum decreto, quod decretum ita 4 
factum erit, cum in decurionibus non | minus quam duae partes 
decurionum adfuerint; legemque ei dicere ex | decreto decurionum, 
quod ita ut supra scriptum est decretum erit, ius po| testa temyue 
esse placet; dum ne ea aqua, quae ita distribute discripta deve qua | 
ita decretum erit, aliter quam fistulis plumbeis d(um) t(axat) ab 
rivo p(edes) L ducatur; neve || eae fistulae aut rivos nisi sub terra, 45 
quae terra itineris viaepublicaelimi|tisveerit, ponanturconlocentur; 
neve ea aqua per locum privatum in|vito eo, cuius is locus erit, 
ducatur. Quamque legem ei aquae tuendae op^ribusve, quae eius 
aquae ductus ususve causa facta sunt erunt, tuendis | nviri praefecti 
ex decurion(um) decreto, quod ita ut s(upra) s(criptum) e(st) factum 

erit, dixeriw/, || earn j/frmam ratamque esset placet | (undecim 50 

versus evanidi facti) Venafranae s 

atio quam colono aut incola*. ... | ... .da is cui ex 

decreto decurionum ita, ut supra comprensum est, ne||gotium datum 65 

[ 329 ] 


erit, agenti, turn, qui inter civis et peregrines ius dicet, iudicium | 
reciperatorium in singulas res HS. x reddere, testibusque dumtaxat x 
denunjtiandtf yuaeri placet; dum reciperatorum reiectio inter eum 
qui aget et | eum quocum agetur ita Ret, ut ex lege, ^uae de iudicis 
privatis lata est, | licebit oportebit. 

On a block of marble at Venafrum. Venafrum is one of the 
twenty-eight colonies established in Italy by Augustus (cf. Suet. 
Aug. 46), as its name, colonia Augusta lulia (cf. CIL. x, 4894, 4875; 
Lib. colon. 239. 7) indicates. These colonies, Suetonius says (Aug. 
46), (Augustus) operibus ac vectigalibus pub/ids plurifariam instruxit. 
Very likely his gift to the colony was recorded in the first paragraph 
of the inscription. There is no reference in it to the penalties 
established by the lex Quinctia de aquaeductibus (cf. Bruns, 22) of 
9 B.C., and the settlement of disputes is referred to the peregrine 
praetor (cf. I. 65, qui inter civis et peregrinos ius dicet)^ and not to the 
curatores aquarum^ who took charge of such matters after 1 1 B.C.; 
cf. Mommsen, Ge$. Schr. 3, 97. On the other hand the lex de 
iudicis privatis of the last paragraph is probably a lex lulia of 1 7 B.C. 
(cf. Wlassak, Rom. Processgesetxe, I, 173-188). Therefore the in- 
scription falls between 17 and n B.C. The document is an edict. 
No mention is made in it of the co-operation of the Roman senate; 
cf. Mommsen, op. cit. 3, 81. From this document it is clear (cf. 
1. 38, vendundi causa) that private persons did not receive water 
free in the municipalities, as they did in Rome, but they were 
charged a rental (cf. Mommsen, op. cit. 3, 91), and the proceeds 
were covered into the local treasury; cf. p. 138. The distribution 
of the water was under the control of the magistrates and decurions, 
and the importance of the matter is indicated by the fact that the 
presence of a quorum of two-thirds of the decurions was required 
to make the action legal; cf. pp. 6jf. The most interesting point in 
the inscription for us is the fact that the adjudication of offenses 
is referred to Rome, not to the local magistrates. This is a logical 
outcome of the fact that the aqueduct was given to the city by 
Augustus. It is possible that cases involving a fine less than 10,000 
sesterces were heard by the local magistrates. In the lex de Gallia 
Cisalpina of 49-42 B.C., the municipal officials had full competence 
in matters involving 15,000 sesterces or less; cf. no. 27. It is 

[ 330 ] 


probable, as Mommsen remarks (op. cit. 3, 96), that the Roman 
practice in this matter varied from place to place. With the establish- 
ment of the empire, gifts were more and more frequently made to 
the cities by the emperor, and this precedent shows us how these 
donations gave the central government the natural right to take 
part in the conduct of local affairs. 



(ca. 9 a. Chr.) 

Ditt. Or. Gr. 458, 11. 78 ff.\ Inschriften von Priene, 105. 

"ESofei/ Tot9 eVt 7*779 'Acria9 r 'EXX77<ni>, yvw/j,T)i rov ap^ieped)? 78 
ATTO\\(M)V{OV rov \ Mrjvo<f)i\ov 'A^eaveirov eTrel rrjv veav vov- 
fjiriviav del Bel eardvat, TTJV avrr)[y] || cnra&iv T7?9 e/9 ra? a/o^a9 80 
el<ro&ov Kara re ro TlavXov <J>a/3iov Maft/Ltou rov dv\0v7rdrov 
Suirayfia ical ro rfc 'Acna(9) ifnj<f>icrfji,a evTrooi^erat SG r) rov 
\povov | ra*9 rrapd ra9 ev rot9 dp^aipeaLoi^ ejnic\rj(Ti<; y yei- 
veo'dai rd Kara rd \ dp^aLpeaca /jiTjvl Sexdrwi, a>9 fcal ev rate 
Kopvr)\ict)i vofjicat, yeypairrac, tVro9 | Setcdnjs iaranevov. 

From Priene. We have omitted the first 77 lines of the inscription 
carved on this stone. Paullus Fabius Maximus, proconsul of Asia, 
wrote to the provincial assembly urging the council to adopt the 
natal day of Augustus as the beginning of the official year in the 
province, and to change from the lunar to the solar reckoning of 
the Julian calendar. The assembly adopted the recommendation 
enthusiastically as a means of conferring honor upon the deified 
emperor. Copies of the decree were ordered to be engraved and 
set up in the different cities. In addition to the copy from Priene, 
others have been found at Apamca (CIG. 3957), Dorylaeum (CIL. 
in, 13651), Eumenia (CIG. 39O2/;), and Maeonia (Denkschriften 
der Wiener Akademle^ 54 (191 1), %off.). The part of the document 
which we have included in this collection is a second decree of the 
provincial assembly regulating the elections of municipal magistrates 
under the revised calendar according to the Sulian constitution. 
The Sulian era had been adopted by many of the cities of Asia, 
probably those whose constitutions he had remodelled. According 

[ 331 ] 


to the Sullan law elections must be held fifty days before the be- 
ginning of the civil year. This arrangement was doubtless made to 
allow sufficient time for the settlement of appeals in the case of 
candidates who did not wish to serve in the office to which they had 
been elected. Very little is known of the Sullan constitution. It 
regulated the duties of the governor (Cic. adfam. I. 9. 25; 3. 6. 3, 6) 
and the administration of the municipalities (Cic. adfam. 3. 10. 6), 
and apparently defined the privileges of free cities (Ath. Mitth. 24 
( l8 99)> 234, no. 74). 



(7-6 a. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1211; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 8. 

ia)v] \ 
v[/jid<; ........... 009] | Kal vbnifiov ecrnv r[a? 76i>o/xeya9 virep 

5 rail/ /e]||/)ft5i' ^prj^drcov Kpi(Te[i<; ........ ]|7 7 ?^ Siicao'Ttov tc\ev- 

[ ......... real ov]\Sev Tr\eov rocs 7rt,tca\[ovfjt,voi$ ....... 

VTre^pwvrjdelcrc TO 7rapa/36\[tov ....... 6|7r]o[<r]r; rot? 

10 tcovo~[t, 

Av\ov f 

The subject of this fragmentary letter of the provincial governor 
to the citizens of Thyatira is obscure. Apparently the temple-lands 
had been leased for a high rental and the lessees had brought suit 
for an abatement of the terms. It would seem that the decision of 
the court had been unacceptable to the Thyatirans and they had 
persisted in holding the lessees to their contract. The latter had 
appealed to the governor, and he urged the city to abide by the 
decision of the court or of the arbiters. Cf. Chapot, La prov. rom. 
proc. <?Asie^ 128, n. I. 

[ 332 ] 



(6 a. Chr.) 

Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 9; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1031; 1G. xn, 
3, 174; Ditt. fy//. 3 78o. 
[. . | . . a/jit](t)pyov Be l&aipoyeveos Aeu[/ca]#eoi> (?). 

AvroKpdrayp Kataap Oeov u/o92ey8a<7T09, dp%t,pv<;, \ VTraros TO 
BtoBetcarovaTroBeBeiy/jLevos | /cai BrjfjLapxiKffs e^ovcrlas TO o/cTan/cat- 
Se/carov, \\ KviBiw dp^ovcriy /3ovXr;, Brjutot, %aipiv. Oi 7rpea\/3i,<; 5 

Kal A601/UC7609 /3' TOl) AtOI/l/| (TtOf VTV%OV V 

t, /cat TO ^fi]^>i(j^a a?ro86rT9 | fcaTrjjoprjGav v/3ov\ov 
rov va%av$pi&a T0^L\wro^ rj^rj, Tpvcpepas Se Tr/9 yvvaitcos 
avrov TrapovarTjs \\ Trepi rov davdrov rov RvfiovXov rov XpvaiTTTrov. 10 
'Kycoi | Be e^erdaai Trpoard^as Va\\a)t 'A<rivia)i ra) 
ryv oifcerwv rovs ei'tyepofitvovs rfji alna Std fta\(rdv<i)v 
^^Xct^or rov \pvai7nrov rpti? vv\Kra$ crvve^fi)^ 
TJJI oiKiai rfjc Vjvftov\\\ov Kai Tfpvfapas /xt^' vfipea)? fcal rpoTrcoi 15 
rci'l 7ro\i\opKia\\ riji rpirrji St vvvTnn f ytJLtvov /cal rov do\\<f)bv 
llvftov\ov, rovs 8t T/)V oiKias co-7rora$ V,vftuv\\ov Kai Tpvtfrepav, 
a>? ovre \pi]fjLa-ri^ovr^^ rrpos | TOJ> <\*t,\eivov ovre avn^parro- 
fievoi rals rrpo a \\fio\als ucrfaiXeias tz> rfji tavrwv oifcia rw%iv 20 
r}ovi f av\ro, Trpoarera^ora^ evl ra)i> otKerwv OVK dTrorcrellrai, a>9 
to-w? dv T/9 UTT' opyrjs OV[K] UOLKOV Trpotj^Ojji, aX|Xa d 
tcaraatceodaai'ra rd tcoTTpia avrwv rov \ 6e olfcertjv crvv 

^ el're tKovra \\ e/Ve a/coi'ra a 1)709 jjikv ydp i'- 25 

] | lifalvai ri]v ydcrrpav, [f]l 
8iKaio\[r]tpov &v awtievra rdioeXtpov. 

roaov | eoeicrav rijv Trap' vpelv e^eraaiav ra)i> oovXwv ot </>[u||- 
7Oi^Tf9 Tt;i' oitctiv, 6 /u.?/ Trot <T<f>6Bpa auTot9 e8o^[aTe] | ^aXeTrot 30 
yeyovevai KO,\ Trpos rd evavria ^laorrovi^poi^ \ p,ij Kara rwv 
aia)v Trar oT^otr Tratielv, tV a\Xo[Tp(arJ | oifciav vvfcrwp 
vfipecos Kal (3 Las rpis t7reXr;Xf[^o]|TO)r /cat T7;i/ KOIVI]V djrdv 
V/JLWV (i<r<f>d\iay [(ii'ai]\\povvTa)v dyava%Tovvre$, aXXa Kara rtov 35 
Kal f)v[iic i]]\fjivvovro j]rv^r]Kortov, j^LK^Kurwv Be ov& ar[iv o,rt], 
| 'AXXa vvv opdw av p,oi Boxelre Troujaat rrji e/jifji [Trepi rov]\ra)v 
Tpovoi)o*avrS Kai rd eV Tot9 Brj/JL[oaioi$] | V/JLCOV 6/xoXo- 
ypdfiaara. *Eppa)00e. 

[ 333 ] 


This inscription, containing the letter of Augustus to the 
Cnidians and the letter of Trajan to the Astypalaeans (no. 75), was 
found at Astypalaea. The letter of Augustus deals with the appeal 
of Eubulus and Tryphera to the emperor. They were residents of 
Cnidus, a free town, and a slave in their household had accidentally 
killed a Cnidian who had assailed their house. As public opinion 
was against them, they feared to submit themselves to the juris- 
diction of the local court and they fled to Rome. The Cnidians 
sent an embassy to Augustus with a decree of the city accusing 
the fugitives and demanding their extradition or punishment. The 
emperor instructed the governor of Asia to investigate. When he 
made his report, Augustus rendered a decision acquitting the accused 
and rebuking the Cnidians for their attitude towards Eubulus and 
Tryphera (cf. Mommsen, Roman Provinces, i, 352, n. I ; Chapot, 
La prov. rom. proc. cTAsie^ I26/.). Free cities had jurisdiction 
over civil and criminal cases in their own courts, but the right of 
appeal to the emperor, granted to all citizens of the empire, marks 
the lessening of the power of local magistrates. This development 
was intensified, when, as at Cnidus, the local courts were swayed 
by partisan prejudice. Cf. nos. 25, 40. 

(3 a. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 137; Ditt. Or. Gr. 532. 

'A?ro Avrofcpdropos Keu<j[ap09J | 6eov vlov 6/3a<7ToO VTTCI- 

Tu[oi/ro9 TO] I ScoSe/carov erovs rpirov, 7r[porpai] \ VMV&V 

5 MapTta>z> eV rdyypot,? ev [r]d[yopai] op||*O9 6 TeXecr#[ei,9 UJTTO 

TW[I>] fcaroiic[ovvT(t)v Tla]\<f>\ayovia[v fcal rwv Trpay^arevo- 

fj,[V(0v 7ra]|p' avrois f P[w/Lcata>i/]. | 'Q/jLvva) Ae'a, FT/I/, "HXeo//, 

0eovs 7rdvra[<i fcal 7ra]|o-a9 KOI CLVTOV TOV Sf^ao-frjoi/, tvvorj- 

10 [<rW Kai]\\crapi SeySaa-raifc ical rot? r[e/c]i/ot9 yyo[vot,<; re] \ 

avrov 7ra^[r]a [T]OI> TOV [ftiov] 'Xfovov fc[al \6]\ya)i [/tjai epywt, 

av e/celvot, 

re ^[o/xtftyi/j | o&9 av avrol Kpivwaw, vTrep re rwv r[ov- 
15 TO*?] || SiafapovTcov fji^re cra)/xaT09 <f)L(Tard[at /x^Jjre -^^7)9 
jM]T ftiov /JHjre TKva>v y a\[Xa 7rai/]|rt rpoTTcoi vTrep Tto[v] 
e/ceivois dwr]fc6[vTa)v] \ irdvra tclvSwov virofjieveiv on, re a[i/ 

[ 334 ] 


at<r]|da>/iat r) d/covaco virevavriov rovr[oi<i \e\\\^o^evov rj /3ov- 20 
\ev6/jLvov rj rrpaaao^evov^] \ rovro eyfjLrjvvareiv re Kal fyOpov 
ecr^eaOai ran] | \eyovn i] /3ov\vo^eva)i 17 rrpd(T(To[yri n rov-\ 
rutv ovs T av CK^Opovs avr[o]l Kpivfoo'iv, T0^]|rou9 Kara yr)v 
fcal Qa\aacrav oVXoft^ re] || fcal cri&ijpcoi 8ta>fey Kal dpvvel- 25 
<T\6cu.] j 'Kai; Se n vTrevavrtov TOVTCOC r[ait opKWL\ 
fir) aroixovi'Ttos ica0a)[$ ftl/xo]|(ra, eirapM^iai avrbs re KCLT 
KOL (j[ai/ia]|TO9 rov e/iauroO /cat ^v)(rj<; Kal ftiov Ka\l re]||/CFO)i/ 30 
rov epavTov yv[ovs] \ Kal arvvcfxEpovros e!~a)\iav 

/JLOV TrdvTwv, Kal fjLJ]T <r[a>/zaTa ra] | rwi/ e/JLtov ?*; 

77) /^[//T6 0d\a<r]\\cra Segairo ^r)Se KapTrovs Vy[icoi avTois.] \ 35 

Kara TO, avra w/jiocrav Kal oi t ? [r riji ^copat] | Trdvres V TOK 
Kara ra? L/[7rap^ta<? !l6]|/5a<TT);o(9 rrapa roiv /9&)/zot[9 rot) 
^eySaa-Toi)'] | O/LKUCO? T ( I>a^/iw^6rat of' [r^ r'i)^ N6a7ro]||\ti/ 40 
\yo/jLi>7ji> KaroiKovv[r* 
rrapa r[a)i y3a)/icrf)t rou] | ^e 

From Phazimon (Neoclaudiopolis) in Paphlagonia. Paphlagonia 
was organized as a province of the empire in 6 B.C. The oath of 
loyalty to Augustus was taken three years later at Gangra, the seat 
of provincial government, and the same oath was administered 
throughout the province at the altars of Augustus. The restoration 
t/[7rap^/av] in 1. 37 is due to Reinach, and is conditionally accepted 
by Dittenherger. The hyparchy was the ancient satrapy (Hausoul- 
lier, Rev. PhiloL 25 (igoi), 22 jf.). Dittenberger suggests that the 
term may be applied to a conventus under the Roman administration. 
For similar oaths, cf. nos. 47, 48. Pha/imon was raised from a village 
to a city by Pompey (Strabo, 1 2. 3. 38, p. 560). 

(28 a. Chr.-6 p. Chr.) 

CIL. in, pt. ii, pp. 769 ff.\ Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 158. 

Chap. 3 (-col. i,ll. i6/.). 

Millia civium Romaw^rww adacta Sacramento meo fuerunt cir- 
citer fjuingen\ta.. Ex quibus deduAr; in co/onias aut remisi in municipia 
sua stipeiW/V emeri\t\s millia aliquant^ plura qu&m trecenta et 

[ 335 ] 


iis omnibus agros zdsignavi \ aut pecuniam pro praemis mi/itize 

Chap. 15 (= col. in, 11. 17 ff.}. 

In colorws mill turn meorum consul quintum ex manibiis viritim| 
millia nummum singula dedi 5 acceperunt id triumphale congiarium | 
in coloms hominum circiter centum et viginti millia. 

Chap. 1 6 (== col. m, 11. 22/.)- 

Pecuniam pro agris, quos in consulatu meo quarto et postea 
consulibus | M. Crasso et Cn. Lentulo augure adsignavi militibus, 
solvi municipis. Ea j summa sestertium circiter sexsiens milliens 

25 fuit, quam pro Italicis || praed/j numeravi, et circiter bis mil- 
liens et sescentiens, quod pro agris | provindalibus solvi. Id primus 
et .folus omnium, qui ^/eduxerunt | colonias militum in Italia aut 
in provincis, ad memor/am aetatis | meae feci. Et postea Ti. Nerone 
et Cn. Pisone consulibus, itemyue C. Antistio | et D. Laelio cos., 
et C. Calvisio et L. Pasieno consulibus, et L. Lentu/o et M. 

30 Messalla || consulibus, et L. Caninio et Q. Fabricio cos. mHitibus^ 
quos eme|riteis stipendis in sua municipitf deduxi, praem/W ume- 
rato | persolvi, quam in rem sester//Wz quater milliens /ibenter j 
impendi. | 

Chap. 1 8 (= col. m, 11. 40/.). 

40 Inde ab eo anno^ quo Cn. et P. Lentuli consults fuerunt, cum 
d^ficerent | vecti^alia^ turn centum millibus hominum turn p/uribus 
iw/ato fru\mento ve/ ad nummzrios \ributus ex agro et pztrimonio 
meo op em tult. 

Chap. 21 (= col. iv, 11. 26/.). 

Auri coronari pondo triginta et quinjque millia municipiis et 

colonis Italiae conferentibus ad triumphoi | meos quintum consul 

remisi, et postea, quotienscumque imperator a/>/>^l|latus sum, aurum 

30 coronarium non accepi decernentibus municipiu || et colonij aequ^ 

beni^ne adque antea decreverant. | 

C 336 ] 


Chap. 28(=col. v,ll. 35/.) 

Colonias in Africa Sicilia Afacedonia utraque Hispania Achairf 35 
Asia Syria | Gallia Narbonensi Pij/dia militum deduxi. Italia 
autem xxvm <r0/0ni|as, quae vivo me celeberrimae et frequentis- 
simae fuerunt, me/5 auspicis \ deductas habet. | 

Suppl., chap. 4. 

Be \ 6^9 Ozas tcai ^ovofLa^ov^ /cal d0\rjra<; /cat vav- 
fcal OrjpofjLa^uav 8a)peai [re] CVJTQIK.ICLIS TroXecrfcz/ \ v 
ta, TroXecrty eV eVap^euu? creKJpw /ca[i~\ vjrv\\pi(rv.ol$ TTCTTO- 5 
vrjrcviais rj rear* avbpa <f)i\ois /cat avv\fC\7)Titcol<> y (v ra<? 

This document was originally cut on bronze tablets and placed 
in front of the mausoleum of Augustus in Rome. Kornemann 
(A7/0, 15 (1917)5 214^*.) thinks that the period of composition 
runs from 28 B.C. to A.D. 6, but cf, Koepp, Sokrates^ 8 (1920), 
289 ff. Kornemann's views are elaborated in his Mausoleum u. 
Tatenbericht d. Augustus (1921). The extant copy comes from 
Ancyra. It was discovered, and part of the Latin portion copied, 
by Buysbecche in 1555. In 1746 Richard Pococke published a 
few fragments of the Greek text. More of it was copied by Hamil- 
ton in 1832. The copy on which present-day editions are based 
was made by Humann under the auspices of the Berlin Academy 
in 1 882. The text with a full commentary was published by Momm- 
sen in 1865. A briefer commentary may be found in the editions 
of Peltier (1886), Fairley (1898), Cagnat, he. a/.,and Diehl (1918). 
The Latin text has been republished by R. Wir/, (1922), and the 
entire text with commentary and English translation has been 
edited by E. G. Hardy (1923). 

The extracts which we have published from the Res gestae are 
of interest because of the light which they throw on the colonizing 
policy of the Romans under the early empire, on the provision 
made for veterans at the time of their discharge from the army, on 
the contributions offered to successful generals and to the emperor 
on special occasions by municipalities, and on the assistance given 
to needy cities in paying the vectigalia. 

AMA [ 337 ] " 


In his statement Augustus does not include the colonies founded 
by his colleagues in the triumvirate, but mentions only those 
established by himself. On the foundations in Italy a passage in 
Hyginus (de lim. p. 177, ed. Lachmann) furnishes an important 
commentary: Divus Augustus, in adsignata orbi terrarum pace, 
exercitus, qui aut sub Antonio aut sub Lepido militaverant, pariter 
et suarum legionum milites colonos fecit, alios in Italia, alios in 
provinciis; quibusdam, deletis hostium civitatibus, novas urbes con- 
stituit; quosdam in veteribus oppidis deduxit et colonos nominavit; 
illas quoque urbes, quae deductae a regibus aut dictatoribus fuerant, 
quas bellorum civilium interventus exhauserat, dato iterum coloniae 
nomine, numero civium ampliavit, quasdam et finibus. 

In the case of Italian towns which had been hostile to him, he 
evidently followed somewhat the same policy which the Romans 
had adopted after the conquest of Sicily. Such places were turned 
over to the veterans and resettled by them. Other veterans were 
sent to established communities, which henceforth bore the title 
of colonies. Later in this record (chap. 28 = col. v, 1. 36) Augustus 
can boast that twenty-eight of his Italian colonies were large and 
flourishing, and his boast is justified by the list of prosperous 
colonies in Italy bearing the title of Julia or of Augusta or both 
titles, such as Beneventum, Brixia, Minturnae, and Pisaurum. One 
might infer from chap. 16 (col. in, 1. 22) that the Italian and 
provincial settlements were both made in 30 B.C., but in fact the 
provincial settlements date from 14 B.C. The first sure case of a 
colony founded outside of Italy is that of Narbo Martius, settled 
in 118 B.C. (cf. p. 7), but this was a colony of civilians, whereas 
the ultramarine settlements of Augustus were military in character. 
In the last extract Augustus mentions ten different provinces in 
which he made these settlements, which in many cases served much 
the same purpose abroad as the Roman colonies had served in earlier 
days in pacifying and Romanizing Italy. This was the case especially 
with the military colonies planted in Galatia. The payments made 
to provincial municipalities for the lands occupied by soldiers (cf. 
chap. 1 6 = col. in, 11. 22^;) would seem to be out of harmony 
with the legal theory that all the land in the provinces belonged 
to the Roman state (cf. p. 118). Whether this noteworthy pre- 

C 338 ] 


cedent set by Augustus was followed by later emperors we do not 

When Marius adopted the revolutionary policy of admitting the 
proletariat freely to the army, it was inevitable that some provision 
should be made for veterans at the end of their term of service. At 
first lands were assigned to them in colonies (cf. p. 7). Augustus, 
however, follows an alternative plan, not unlike the "adjusted 
compensation" proposal under discussion in the United States of 
America, of giving veterans either grants of land or money gratuities 
or both, as he did in 29 B.C. (cf. chap. 15 = col. in, 11. 17 jf.)- The 
land-grant policy was given up after 14 B.C. (Cass. Dio, 54. 25), 
and from 7 B.C. a fixed money payment, probably of 1 2,000 sesterces, 
was made to each soldier on the completion of his term of service 
(Cass. Dio, 55. 23). To make these payments he spent 400,000,000 
sesterces before the close of his reign (cf. chap. 16 = col. in, 11. 28 ^f.). 
As the army became a more important factor in politics in the later 
years of the empire, great sums of money were given in the form 
of largesses to soldiers in active service, and this added heavily to 
the burden of taxes paid by the municipalities (cf. p. 219). 

The contributions made by the cities of a province to provide 
golden crowns to be carried in the triumphal procession of its 
governor are well enough known under the republic. Augustus 
checked the development of this practice in Italy (chap. 21 = col. iv, 

11. 26/.)- 

As Mommsen has observed, chap. 18 (col. in, 11. 40 jf.) is prob- 
ably to be interpreted in the light of Cassius Dio's remark (54. 30) 
that: eTreiSij re fj 'Acr/a TO etivo? eTrtfcovpias nvos Sea aeio-povs 
fjLd\i<rra eSeiro, rov re <f>6pov avrfj^ TOV Zreiov K r>v avrov 
Xpr)ndr<ov TCM /cow** do-jjveyice. Specifically Augustus doubtless has 
in mind the remission of the vectigalia in the case of cities which had 
suffered from earthquakes or experienced some other serious loss. 
This interpretation would harmonize with von Premerstein's emen- 
dation (Phil. Wochemchr. 1922, 135/0 of col. vi, 1. 41 to read 
donata pecuma . . . colonts, municipiis, oppidis terrae motu incendioque 
consumptis. The results of these generous acts of Augustus and of 
some of his successors are noted in another connection (cf. pp. 1 47 

[ 339 ] 



(ca. ii p. Chr.) 

l.B.M. 521; Viereck, Sermo Graecus, 7; Ditt. Syll? 784. 

Ma/>/to9 'EtpevviosTH/cr)*; dv6[yiraros Xeye^]. | 'A</>az/ou9 yeyevr)- 
IJLGVOV rov 7ra[/9aTei%ur]|yiiaT09, oTrep SrjfjLoaiat, Karao-K\yr)i VTTO 
<e<nW /Meraifv rr)$ dyopas /ca[l rov Xfc/xe]||i/o9 yeyovevat, 
elro, e\^lre ev Ti>/] | rwv /caipoSv rj rov TroXeyitou 7re[/H- 
^, el^re Sta rrjv TQVTW a/>teXe^a^, ol r^erayfjievot, \ rjcrav .... 

From Ephesus. This edict of the proconsul refers to a wall erected 
by the Ephesians for the convenience of exacting customs dues on 
goods entering the city by sea. Unfortunately the major portion 
of the inscription has disappeared, but, since the wall was built by 
the city, it might be inferred that the portorium at Ephesus was a 
municipal, and not an imperial tax (Cagnat, Les impots indirect* chez 
les Remains^ 4 ff.)> The fact, however, that the wall had fallen into 
decay, and that the governor issued the edict concerning it, leaves 
the question of the control of this tax in uncertainty. The portorium 
at Palmyra was a municipal tax, but elsewhere it seems to have 
been imposed by the imperial authorities (cf. no. 89 and pp. 122 ff.}. 


(5-14 p. Chr.) 

CIG. 2222; Cagnat, 7G. 4, 943; Ditt. fy//. 3 785. 

. . | Srac^uXou vTrap^ovrayv Trpos TOU<? Xeieoi/ Trpecrfteis, dva- 
<yeiv<*)(r[icbv)\T(i)v 7ricrTo\r)v 'Avricrriov Ot>Tep09 ToO TT/OO 

5 o\iicf) /AOV [7r/oo]||06[cr]e rov [rjrj[p]eiv ra VTTO rwv Trpo efiov 
dvdvTrdrw ypa^evr^ay <f>v]\\drrew real rrjv v7Tp rovrcov 
fjLevqv 7Ti,<7ro\rjv Overe[po^ \ evXoyov ^yrjcrd^riv v&repov 
e/carepov pepovs et; dvrifca[ra]\crrda(*)<i Trepl rd>v Kara 
fyrrj/Jidrwv ev(r)vyovro<; S^^f/coi/JIcra teal Kara rr)v fjLrjv 
10 Qsiav Trap* eKarepov /j,epov$ 7ri/jL,[\6<r]\\repa ytypafjifjieva ff 

VTro/jLVijfjLara* [a \]aftu>v teal Kara rb 7T6[y8aXj|Xoi/ 7Ticrrrjcra$ 
evpov ro?9 ftev XPovo^)? dp^aiordro 

[ 340 ] 


76701/6x09 Aov/ciq* SuXXa TO &e[vT]\pov 
, ev a> fjLaprv[prfd]elari rot? X eiow, ocra vtrep 'PwfjLaiwv 
&i[t0r)~]\/cdv re Mi6pL^drr)v dvSpayadovvre? teal UTT' avrov eiraOov 
TI aw[/eA,?7]||T09 el8cfcw^ efteftaitocrev O7ra>9 VO/JLOL? re /cat Wecnv 15 
/cat &itcaiois [%pw^]|rat, a ecr^ov ore rf) 'PaytaiW (<f>i)\ia Trpocr- 
rjKdov, iva re VTTO ^0" <pTivi\o\)v\ \ TUTTO) (Scrip dp^ovTw ^ 
dvTap^ovTtov, 01 T Trap' avrols oi/re? f Pa>[/xat]|ot TO?? Xe/wi/ 
vTra/covctiaiv vopow Avro/cpdropo? Se deov vlov 2[e]|/3a<rroC TO 
oySoov vTrdrov 7ricrTo\r)(v) 777509 Xetou9 7pa^oi/T[o9 || . . ]t9 .ei> 20 

T17I/ 7r6\CV 7TV0[TO . . ] 

From Chios. This letter confirms the Chians in their privileges 
granted them by Sulla: the right of using their own laws, customs, 
and courts. Resident Romans were subjected to the jurisdiction of 
the Chian court. The latter concession is unusual, as Romans were 
usually tried by the governor under the principles of Roman law. 
Apparently some of the proconsuls had not observed the provisions 
of the decree of the senate passed under Sulla's dictatorship, and 
the emperor Augustus and the present proconsul had been memo- 
rialized by the Chians who jealously guarded their privileges. This 
letter, therefore, furnishes evidence of the encroachment of the 
governors on the privileges which autonomous states enjoyed. It 
is true that the action of Antistius Vetus is apparently reversed, 
but it is evident that the governor is not instructed as to the varying 
status of the cities under his jurisdiction. His administration tends, 
accordingly, to be uniform in policy towards all the municipalities, 
until some of them choose to protest. In such cases they are required 
to furnish adequate proof for their claim to special treatment (cf. 
Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 47, 48, 92, 93). It is for this reason that 
cities, cherishing their ancient privileges, send embassies to the 
emperor on his inauguration asking for confirmation of their 
charters (cf. nos. 75, 130). For the autonomy of Chios see Livy, 
38. 39; Appian, Mithr. 25. 46; Pliny, N.H. 5. 136; Chapot, 
La prov. rom. proc. d' Asie, 114, 125. 

[ 341 3 


(ca. 14 p. Chr.) 

GIL. m, 1741; Dessau, 938. 

P. Cornelio | Dolabellae cos. | vn viro epuloni, | sodali Titiensi, || 
5 leg. pro pr. divi August! | et Ti. Caesaris Augusti | civitates su- 
perioris | provinciae Hillyrici. 

Found at Ragusa in Dalmatia, on the probable site of Epidaurus. 
This is the only extant inscription concerning a concilium in Dal- 
matia. Dolabella was consul in A.D. 10 and legatus from A.D. 14 
on (cf. Veil. 2. 125). 

(p. 14 p. Chr.) 

CIL. m, 5232; Dessau, 1977. 

C. lulius Vepo donatus | civitate Romana viritim | et inmunitate 
5 ab divo Aug., j vivos fecit sibi et || Boniatae Antoni fil. coniugi | 
et suis. 

Found at Celeia in Noricum. On the grant of Roman citizen- 
ship to individuals, cf. no. 13. For similar cases under the empire, 
cf. Dessau, 1978-1980. 


(26 p. Chr.) 

CIL. xi, 3805; Dessau, 6579. 

Centumviri municipii Augusti Veientis | Romae in aedem 

Veneris Genetricis cum convenis|sent, placuit universis, dum de- 

cretum conscriberetur, | interim ex auctoritate omnium permitti || 

5 C. lulio divi Augusti 1. Geloti, qui omni tempore | municip. Veios 

non solum consilio et gratia adiuverit | sed etiam inpensis suis et 

per filium suum celebrari | voluerit, honorem ei iustissimum de- 

ro cerni, ut | Augustalium numero habeatur aeque ac si eo || honore 

usus sit, liceatque ei omnibus spectaculis | municipio nostro bisellio 

proprio inter Augus) tales considere cenisque omnibus publicis | inter 

centumviros interesse, itemque placere | ne quod ab eo liberisque 

15 eius vectigal municipii || Augusti Veientis exigeretur. | 

[ 342 ] 


Adfuerunt | C. Scaevius Curiatius, | L. Perperna Priscus nvir., | 
M. Flavius Rufus q., || T. Vettius Rufus q., | M. Tarquitius 20 
Saturnin., | L. Maecilius Scrupus, | L. Favonius Lucanus, | Cn. 
Octavius Sabinus, || T. Sempronius Gracchus, | P. Acuvius P. f. 25 
Tro., | C. Veianius Maximus, | T. Tarquitius Rufus, | C. lulius 
Merula. || Actum | Gaetulico et Calvisio Sabino cos. 3 

Found at Veii. Only one other epigraphical case of the use of 
the title centumviri for the members of a municipal senate is known, 
viz. at Cures (GIL. ix, p. 472). For the usual titles, cf. p. 56. For 
municipal decrees of the second and third centuries after Christ, 
cf. CIL. v, 532 and no. 146. 


(27 p. Chr.) 

CIL. v, 4919; Dessau, 6100. 

M. Crasso Frugi, L. Calpurnio | Pisone cos. | in non. Febr. | 
civitas Themetra ex Africa hospitium || fecit cum C. Silio C. f. 5 
Fab. Aviola eum \ liberos posterosque eius sibi liberis | posterisque 
suis patronum cooptave|runt. C. Silius C. f. Fab. Aviola civitatem 
Theme|trensem liberos posterosque eorum || sibi liberis posterisque 10 
suis in fidem | clientelamque suam recepit. | Egerunt Banno Himilis 
f., sufes; Azdrubal Baisillecis f., | Iddibal Bos/haris f., leg. 

A bron/.e tablet found near Brixia, apparently kept in the villa 
of Silius Aviola. Other extant tablets record the election of Aviola 
in two other cities; cf. Dessau, 6099, bogga. On the other hand 
a single city might have several patroni\ cf. no. 136. On the 
election of priests in the colonia Genitivae luliae, cf. no. 26. 
A/,drubal and Iddibal are deputies to announce his election to 
Aviola; cf. no. 135 and CIL. ix, 3429. 


(p. 33 p. Chr.) 

CIL. x, 1233; Dessau, 6124. 

suf. A. Plautius, L. Nonius. 
T. Salvius Parianus, A. Terentius nvir. ; 
Sex. Aponius Proculus, Q. Nolcennius aed. 

[ 343 ] 


L. Cassius Longinus, M. Vinicius cos., <*./>. Chr. 30 

5 suf. C. Cassius Longinus, L. Naevius Surdinus. 

M. Sentius Rufus, Q. Vibi^dius Sedatus nvir.; 
P. Subidius Pollio, Sex. Parianus Serenus aed. 

Ti. Caesar Aug. v cos. a -P- Chr - 3 1 

suf. vii id. Mai. Faustus Cornelius Sulla, Sex. Teidius 

Catull. cos. 
10 suf. k. lul. L. Fulcinius Trio cos. 

T. Oppius Proculus, M. Staius Flaccus nvir. iter. q.; 
M. Atinius Florens, A. Cluvius Celer aed. 
suf. k. Oct. P. Memmius Regulus cos. 

Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. <?/> Chr. 32 

15 suf. k. lul. A. Vitellius cos. 

M. Valerius Postumus, Q. Luceius Clemens nvir.; 
C. Sentius Severus, L. Ippellius Atticus aed. 
Ser. Sulpicius Galba, L. Sulla Felix cos. a. p. Chr. 33 

This document contains the names of the municipal magistrates 
at Nola from A.D. 29 to 33 inclusive. The inscription was probably 
cut subsequent to A.D. 33, because in that year Galba still retained 
the praenomen Lucius, which later he changed to Servius; cf. 
Prosop. 3, p. 284, no. 723. The appearance of the names of the 
magistrates of A.D. 31 after that of the consul suffectus named July i, 
and before that of the suffectus named Oct. I, probably points to 
July I as the date of election. This conforms to the practice in 
the col. Gen. lul.; cf. no. 26, 1. 98. Not infrequently in the in- 
scriptions the names of the duovirs precede those of the consuls; 
cf.y e.g., OIL. x, 1781. For a republican list of local magistrates, 
cf. CIL. ix, 422 Dessau, 6123. 


("-35 P- Chr O 
IG. IX, 2, 261 ; de Ruggiero, L'arbttrato pubblico^ 31 ; Tod, XLI. 

rpbs a[XXr;]\a9 ou|[ ] IH al- 

op/cov fCpv<f)a[L\a)$ Mrjr]po7ro\cr(^v 

, /3paftVOv\[To$ r]e Trap' vpelv o<f>i\ovro<s, tcaO* 

5 rjv Kal T7/9 tcpi<r[\\Q)S . . . . ]i/ rjv^O^aav /*#' op/cov 

[ 344 ] 


8iafc6<Tiai evevrjKOvra OKTCO, M?;Tpo]7roA,emu9 rpid- 
fcovra /jiia, axvpoi Trei/re . | . . . . [Fcuou YloTTTr^aicoi 
TrpecrftevTrji, Ti/Sepiov Kaicrap[o9 | 6 Selva rov Selvos, 
TeJi/9 TV avve&ptov TrXelara ^aipeiv. "Eypa|[ijra9 r]/jilv rrjv 
Kwpiecov KOI Mr)T]poTro\iT(!)v viroQecnv fjv el%oz/ Trepl opeoi/, 
O\\[TL avrr)v rjgicocras TOVS <rvve8pov]$ Kplvac 01/9 fcal eSijXov? pot 10 
fear o\lri,v ev At8e|[>/rc5t * ejJi 8' v VcrOi v0v$ oi/caBe a\ 

TTJV Kpiaiv ev ran eve^crrrj/con ecrcraXaSi/ 
<Tvv8piGi)i T(i eV rcSt uau fjirjvi' (rvve\6ovro)\y \ Be 
fcai afji(f)OTpa)v eVt T^]^ Kpiaiv teal Xoywv VTT avr&v 

fcpv<f>aio)s /Lte^*] op/cov 

JJLLCLV, d/cvpovs 7Ti>T. TavTa 

"Kppaxro. YaittiL IIo7r]7raia)i, 2a/3etVa>t TTpeo-^evr^L Tifteplov 
| o Set/^a roO ^66^09, c7TpaT77J'yo9 WecrcraXco^ yj&ipew. 
KU/JLOI KOI ro[t9 | crvveSpoi? TTJV Kiepiecov re 

vTroOeaiv, ?}r eZ^oi/ Trept opcov, O\[TL TO 
Trepl TOVTCOV] 8idyva)frtv dveTre^^rev. Yeivwo-ice ovv eiptj- 

TOVS *v TO>I Wi!]ft)t /JLJJVI /cal evrjvey- 20 
peff opfcov tcpv$)ai\\_a)S r9 -^n^ov^ Kiepievaiv] pev 
o/cra>, M?;rp[o|7ro\66Tai9 8e TpiaKovra piav, 
dicvpovs 7re]i/T TavTa ovv TrtTr}$i,ov rjyr)cr[d\iJie0a ypd^aL, 

OTTOK ]oz/ TO fieffaiov rj Kpio~ts VTTO crov \d/3rjc e7Ti\ .... 

From Cicrium. Gaius Poppaeus Sabinus was governor of \Ioesia 
from A.D. i i~3S. In A.D. 15 the provinces of Achaea and Macedonia 
were added to his jurisdiction, being transferred from the senate 
to the emperor (Tac. Ann. \. 80; 6. 39). In this document we 
have an example of administrative arbitration (cf. pp. 158 ff.). The 
dispute between the two cities was referred by the governor to the 
fcoii'oi> of Thessaly for decision. We learn that there were at least 
334 members in this assembly, each casting a single vote. It is not 
known whether the two cities Cierium and Metropolis were per- 
mitted to vote in a case which affected them, but if not, we may 
assume that a larger number of votes could be cast at a full session 
of all the members. It is evident that some of the cities in Thessaly 
sent more than one delegate to the provincial assembly, as there 
could not be three hundred cities in this KOIVOV. Cf. pp. i66ff. 

[ 345 ] 



(37 P. Chr.) 

GIL. n, 172; Dessau, 1905 Bruns, 101. 

C. Ummidio Durmio Quadrate, | leg(ato) C. Caesaris Germanici 
imp(eratoris) | pro pr(aetore). | 

lus iurandum Aritiensium. || 

5 Ex mei animi sententia, ut ego iis inimicus | ero, quos C. Caesari 

Germanico inimicos esse | cognovero, et si quis periculum ei 

salutiq(ue) eius | in/er/ in/emque armis bello internicivo | terra 

10 mariq(ue) persequi non desinam, quoad || poenas ei persolverit: 

neq(ue) me neque liberos meos | eius salute cariores habebo, eosq(ue), 

qui in | eum hostili animo fuerint, mihi hostes esse | ducam: si 

sciens fallo fefellerove, turn me | liberosq(ue) meos luppiter optimus 

15 maximus ac |] divus Augustus ceteriq(ue) omnes di immortales | 

expertem patria incolumitate fortunisque | omnibus faxint. 

A.d. \ idus Mai*?/ in | Aritiense oppido veteri Cn. Acerronio | 
20 Proculo, C. Petronio Pontio Nigrino cos., || mag(istris) | Vegeto 
Tallici, . . .ibio. . .arioni. 

Bronze tablet found at Aritium in Lusitania. It contains an 
oath taken by the residents of communities throughout the Roman 
world on receiving news of the accession of Gaius. A similar oath 
was taken by civilians when Tiberius became princeps (Tac. Ann. 
I. 7). Its general form was traditional; cf. Livy, 22. 53. The oath 
of allegiance which the people of Assos took to Gaius (no. 48) 
was preceded by a decree of the local senate and confirmed by the 
local Roman conventus. Among the legati sent to Rome were four 
Greeks and one Roman. For an oath of allegiance to Augustus 
of 3 B.C., cf. no. 37. 

(37 p. Chr.) 

Bruns, 102; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 251; Ditt. Syll? 797. 

virdrcov Tvaiov 'A/eeppcoviov \ HpotcXou /cal Tatov \\ovrlov 
Niyplvov. \ 

Atfalcov yvcofjLrjt, rov STJJJLOV. \\ 
'Evrel f] tear ev^^v 7ra<riv avOptoTrois \7ri(r6el(Ta Tatov \ Kai- 

[ 346 ] 


crapo? YepfAavitcov 2e)3a<rroO rjye/Jiovia /car^i^yeXrat, | ovSev Be 
evpv)K\ji\v 6 /c6o>to9, Tracra 8e 7rdXt9 | /cat 
roi) #eoO otyiv 0"[7r]e vrcev, a>9 ai/ rov 
atcSi>o[9] vvv erecrrcSTO?, || eSo^ei/ r?7 /3ov\fj teal rot9 10 
7rpayfji,aTvo/Avot,<; Trap" rjfilv | 'Pco/Jiaiois teal T&H 8r/yLt(Wfc 
'Aaoricov KaracrraOrivcu Trpe^ftelav tc T&V Trpcorcov fcal 
f P(0fjt,ala)v re fcal *}L\\r)\vayv Trjv evrev^opewrjv ical <TVwr](r0r)- 
<ro/JL6vr)v avTtoi, \ SeyOrjaro/JLevrjv re e^eiv Sea ILV^T)^ teal /crjbe- 

|| rrjv TroXtz/, /ca^ox? /cat auro9 /iera roO Trarpo? Fep/iai/tAcoO | 15 

Ata ^corrjpa teal Oeov Kaicrapa SeySacrTor/ /cat 
Trdrpiov ayvrjv TIapOevov, evvorjdetv Tatcoi Kaicrapi SeySaorjrcSt 20 
/cat raJt Gv^TravTi ottc(joi avrov, /cat <^>tXof9 re xpivelv, \ o&9 ai^ 
aura? Trpoaiprjrai, /cat %0pov<>, ou9 ai> auT09 7r/3o/3a|\77Tat. 
evopKovcriv pev r^jJiv ev eir), <J>ioptcovcri,v Se ra i>av\Tia. \\ 

Tlpea/Sevral 7rr)vyi\ai>TO 6/c rc3i^ ISicov \ FatO9 OtaptO9 2 5 
ut'o9 Qvo\rivia Karros \ 'Rp/jLo^dvrj^ Za)t\ov, \ Krrjro9 



At) KaTrtrcoXtwt edvaav 

A bronze tablet found at Assos. It contains the oath taken by 
the city of Assos on the accession of Gaius. For similar oaths of 
loyalty, r/. nos. 37, 47, The excessive flattery in which the Greek 
cities indulged, when they sent their embassies to Rome, may be 
clearly seen in the tone of this decree. 


(46 p. Chr.) 

C1L. v, 5050; Dessau, 206; Bruns, 79-, Girard, p. 188; Ricco- 
bono, p. 318; de Ruggiero, U arbitrate pubblico^ 39. 

M. lunio Silano, Q. Sulpicio Camerino cos. | idibus Martis, 
Bais in praetorio, edictum | Ti. Claudi Caesaris Augusti Germanici 
propositum fuit id | quod infra scriptum est. || 

Ti. Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus pont. | maxim., trib. 5 
potest. vi, imp. xi, p. p., cos. designatus mi, dicit: | 

[ 347 ] 


Cum ex veteribus controversis peWentibus aliquamdiu etiam | 
temporibus Ti. Caesaris patrui mei, ad quas ordinandas | Pinarium 

10 Apollinarem miserat, quae tantum modo || inter Comenses essent 
(quantum memoria refero) et | Bergaleos, isque primum apsentia 
pertinaci patrui mei, | deinde etiam Gai principatu, quod ab eo 
non exigebatur | referre, non stulte quidem, neglexserit; et posteac | 

15 detulerit Camurius Statutus ad me, agros plerosque || et saltus mei 
iuris esse: in rem praesentem misi | Plantam lulium amicum et 
comitem meum, qui | cum, adhibitis procuratoribus meis qu/que 
in alia | regione quique in vicinia erant, summa cura inqui|sierit et 

20 cognoverit, cetera quidem, ut mihi demons||trata cornmentario facto 
ab ipso sunt, statuat pronun|tietque ipsi permitto. | 

Quod ad condicionem Anaunorum et Tulliassium et Sinduno|rum 
pertinet, quorum partem delator adtributam Triden|tinis, partem 

25 ne adtributam quidem arguisse dicitur, || tametsi animadverto non 
nimium firmam id genus homi|num habere civitatis Romanae 
originem: tamen, cum longa | usurpatione in possessionem eius 
fuisse dicatur et ita permix|tum cum Tridentinis, ut diduci ab is 
sine gravi splendidV municipi | iniuria non possit, patior eos in eo 

30 iure, in quo esse se existima||verunt, permanere beneficio meo, eo 
quidem libentius, quod | pler/que ex eo genere hominum etiam 
militare in praetorio | meo dicuntur, quidam vero ordines quoque 
duxisse, | nonnulli #llecti in decurias Romae res iudicare. | 

35 Quod benificium is ita tribuo, ut quaecunque tanquam || cives 
Romani gesserunt egeruntque, aut inter se aut cum | Tridentinis 
alisve, rata esse iubeaw, nominaque ea, | quae habuerunt antea 
tanquam cives Romani, ita habere is permittam. 

Bronze tablet found in 1869 in the Val di Non, probably on the 
site of the principal village of the Anauni, near Trent (Tridentum), 
now in Trent. The date is fixed by the opening paragraphs. This 
document takes the characteristic form of an edict (cf. pp. 236/5 and 
Haberleitner, PhiloL 68 (1909), 286^.). The introductory clauses 
close with the conventional phrase imperator . . . dicit> and the verbs 
which follow are in the first person singular. Claudius used the 
form of the edict very freely for his constitutions (cf. Suet. Claud. 
1 6, uno die vlglnti edict a proposuit). 

Reference is made in the edict to two separate questions. One 

[ 348 ] 


question has arisen out of a dispute between Comum and the 
Bergalei. The other concerns the relations between Tridentum on 
the one hand and the Anauni (modern Non), the Tulliasses (Dolas), 
and the Sinduni (Saone) on the other. The body of the edict 
(11. 22 ff.) deals only with certain aspects of the second question. 
Why is the first incident mentioned at all? Its inclusion may be 
due to the well-known interest of Claudius in historical and anti- 
quarian matters, but mention of it here is justified in part, at least, 
by the historical connection between the two incidents, and by the 
fact that several of the legal questions arising were common to the 
two cases. In both instances the relation which certain Alpine 
tribes bore to a neighboring municipality was the fundamental 
point at issue. The historical connection arose from the circumstance 
that the facts in the case of Comum and the Bergalei had been 
investigated by Pinarius Apollinaris, a commissioner sent out by 
Tiberius, probably at the instance of Comum (cf. Hardy, Three 
Spanish Charters, 127, n. 9) and that the report of Apollinaris had 
remained in abeyance until Claudius took up the matter again and 
appointed a new representative in the person of Camurius Statutus, 
whose investigation brought to light certain puzzling legal and 
political questions in the relation which three other Alpine tribes 
bore to the municipium of Tridentum. One matter involved in the 
case of the Anauni and the two other tribes concerns a claim to 
Roman citizenship. That can be decided only by the emperor, and 
to that question his edict (11. 22 ff.) is devoted. Julius Planta, the 
commissioner of Claudius, is authorized to settle the other points, 
probably in the case of the Bergalei, as well as in that of the Anauni. 
It was the practice of the Roman people to put hamlets and people 
in the tribal state under the charge of the local magistrates of a 
neighboring civitas (cf. pp. loff.). This practice had been followed 
in the Alpine region especially (cf. Hardy, op. cit. 130, n. 19; 
Marquardt, St. I/erw. I, 7, 14), and the Anauni seem to have 
taken it for granted that as attribute of Tridentum, they were 
citizens of Tridentum, and, consequently, Roman citizens (cf. 
Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 4, 300), or that they were actually in the 
territorium of Tridentum, and for that reason were Roman citizens 
(cf. Hardy, op. cit. 124). In point of fact it transpires that none of 

[ 349 ] 


the Anauni are in the "territory" of Tridentum, that some of 
them are attributi and others have no connection with the muni- 
cipality (11. 23, 24), and that even those who are attributi do not 
have the full right of Tridentine citizenship (Mommsen, op. cit. 
4. 3O4/.), and therefore are not Roman citizens. However, in view 
of the fact that they have honestly exercised these rights for a long 
time, and that the people of Tridentum would be seriously in- 
convenienced by having their marriages with the Anauni declared 
illegal (cf. Mommsen, op. cit. 4. 307), the emperor allows them to 
continue in the status which they believed was theirs. 

Tridentum is called a muntcipium in the edict (1. 28). With other 
Transpadane towns it received Roman citizenship from Caesar. 
Under the empire, but later than the time of Claudius, it was made 
a colony (cf. OIL. v, 5036). 

In the question which arose between Genua and the Viturii 
(cf. no. 10) only the two communities mentioned were involved. 
The ownership of certain land was vested either in the one com- 
munity or the other. The case was a simple one of arbitration by 
the Roman senate through its commissioners between two com- 
munities. But here there are certain districts which, as Claudius 
says (1. 15), are mei iuris. Such domains are subject to an impost, 
to be paid to the procurator (cf. Hirschfeld, I29/.), and the state 
or the emperor is a party to the action. There are then three possi- 
bilities: (i) the Anauni may own the land in question; (2) they 
may be occupying land in the territorium of Tridentum. In this 
case they must pay tribute to Tridentum, or (3) their land may 
belong to Rome, in which case Rome has a claim on a part of the 
produce from it. Having settled the central question of citizenship, 
Claudius delegates the decision of the other points involved to his 
commissioner, Julius Planta, who is instructed to call into his 
consilium (cf. de Ruggiero, U arbitrate pubblico, 350) the procurator 
of the neighboring province of Raetia and the procurators of the 
imperial domains near at hand (11. 16 18). For commentario (1. 20), 
cf. Hirschfeld, 325, n. I. The privilege which Claudius grants to 
the Anauni of retaining their Roman names (11. 36, 37) would be 
implied in the gift of Roman citizenship. Perhaps the special 
mention of this matter reflects the fastidiousness of Claudius 

[ 350 ] 


on this point (cf. Suet. Claud. 25, peregrmae conditionis homines 
vetuit usurpare Romana nomtna). 


(48 p. Chr.) 

CIL. xni, 1668; Dessau, 212; Bruns, 52; Riccobono, p. 228; 
Nipperdey's Tacitus, 2, 317-322. 

... | mae rerum nostrarum sit u | Col. i 

Equidem primam omnium illam cogitationem hominum quam | 
maxime primam occursuram mihi provideo, deprecor, ne | quasi 
novarn istam rem introduci exhorrescatis, sed ilia || potius cogitetis, 5 
quam multa in hac civitate novata sint, et | quidem statim ab origine 
urbis nostrae in quo/ formas | statusque res p(ublica) nostra diducta 
sit. | 

Quondam reges hanc tenuere urbem, nee tamen domesticis 
succes|soribus earn tradere contigit. Supervenere alieni et quidam 
exterijni, ut Nurna Romulo successerit ex Sabinis veniens, vicinus 10 
qui|dem, sed tune externus; ut Anco Marcio Priscus Tarquinius. 
Is | propter tcmeratum sanguinem,quod patre DemarathoC0|rinthio 
natus erat et Tarquinicnsi matre generosa sed inopi, | ut quae tali 
marito necesse habuerit succumbere, cum domi re||pelleretur a 15 
gerendis honoribus, postquam Romam migravit, | regnum adeptus 
est. Huic quoque et filio nepotive eius (nam et j hoc inter auctores 
discrepat) insertus Servius Tullius, si nostros | sequimur, captiva 
natus Ocresia, si Tuscos, Caeli quondam Vi|vcnnae sodalis fidelis- 
simus omnisque eius casus comes, post||quam varia fortuna exactus 20 
cum omnibus reliquis Cacliani | exercitus Etruria excessit, montem 
Caelium occupavit et a duce suo | Caelio ita appellita^/Y, mutatoque 
nomine (nam Tusce Mastarna | ei nomcn erat) ita appellatus est, 
ut dixi, et regnum summa cum rei | p(ublicae) utilitate optinuit. 
Deinde postquam Tarquini Superb! mores injjvisi civitati nostrae 25 
esse coeperunt, qua ipsius qua filiorum eiwj, | nempe pertaesum est 
mentes regni et ad consules, annuos magis|tratus, administratio rei 
p(ublicae) translata est. | 

Quid nunc commemorcm dictaturae hoc ipso consular) impejrium 
valentius repertum apud maiores nostros, quo in a/||perioribus bellis 30 

[ 351 ] 


aut in civili motu difficiliore uterentur? | aut in auxilium plebis 
creates tribunes plebei? quid a consujlibus ad decemviros translatum 
imperium, solutoque postea | decemvirali regno ad consules rusus 
reditum? quid inp/u\ris distributum consulare imperium tribunosque 

35 mil/tarn || consulari imperio appellatos, qui seni et saepe octoni 
crearenjtur? quid communicates postremo cum plebe honores, non 
imperi | solum sed sacerdotiorum quoque? lam si narrem bella, a 
quibus | coeperint maiores nostri, et quo processerimus, vereor ne 
nimio | insolentior esse videar et quaesisse iactationem gloriae 

40 pro||lati imperi ultra oceanum. Sed illoc potius revertar. Civita- 
tem | . . . 

(nonnulla interciderunf) 

Col. ii ./>0test. Sane | novo more et divus Augustus avoncu/us meus 
et patruus Ti. | Caesar omnem florem ubique coloniarum ac muni- 
cipiorum, bo|norum scilicet virorum et locupletium, in hac curia 

5 esse voluit. || Quid ergo? non Italicus senator provincial potior 
est? lam j vobis, cum hanc partem censurae meae adprobare coe- 
pero, quid | de ea re sentiam, rebus ostendam. Sed ne provinciales 
quidem, | si modo ornare curiam poterint, reiciendos puto. 

Ornatissima ecce colonia valentissimaque Viennensium, quam || 

10 longo iam tempore senatores huic curiae confert! Ex qua colo|nia 
inter paucos equestris ordinis ornamentum L. Vestinum fa|miliaris- 
sime diligo et hodieque in rebus meis detineo, cuius libe|ri fruantur 
quaeso primo sacerdotiorum gradu, post modo cum | annis promo- 

15 turi dignitatis suae incrementa; ut dirum nomen la||tronis taceam, 
et odi illud palaestricum prodigium, quod ante in do | mum con- 
sulatum intulit, quam colonia sua solidum civitatis Roma|nae beni- 
ficium consecuta est. Idem de fratre eius possum dicere, | miserabili 
quidem indignissimoque hoc casu, ut vobis utilis | senator esse non 
possit. || 

20 Tempus est iam, Ti. Caesar Germanice, detegere te patribus 
conscriptis, | quo tendat oratio tua; iam enim ad extremes fines 
Galliae Narjbonensis venisti. | 

Tot ecce insignes iuvenes, quot intueor, non magis sunt paeni- 
tendi I senatores, quam paenitet Persicum, nobilissimum virum, 

25 ami||cum meum, inter imagines maiorum suorum Allobrogici 
ne|men legere. Quod si haec ita esse consent! tis, quid ultra desi- 

[ 352 ] 


derajtis, quam ut vobis digito demonstrem, solum ipsum ultra fines | 
provinciae Narbonensis iam vobis senatores mittere, quando | ex 
Luguduno habere nos nostri ordinis viros non paenitet. || Timide 30 
quidem, p(atres) c(onscripti), egressus adsuetos familiaresque vobis 
projvinciarum terminos sum, sed destricte iam Comatae Galliae | 
causa agenda est, in qua si quis hoc intuetur, quod bello per de|cem 
annos exercuerunt divom lulium, idem opponat centum | annorum 
immobilem fidem obsequiumque multis trepidis re|jbus nostris plus 35 
quam expertum. Illi patri meo Druso Germaniam | subigenti 
tutam quiete sua securamque a tergo pacem praes|titerunt, et quidem 
cum a census novo turn opere et inadsuejto Gallis ad bellum advo- 
catus esset; quod opus quam arjduum sit nobis, nunc cum maxime, 
quamvis nihil ultra, quam || ut publice notae sint facultates nostrae, 4 
exquiratur, nimis | magno experimento cognoscimus. 

On a bronze tablet found at Lugudunum, now in the museum 
at Lyons. It is engraved in two columns. The upper part of the 
tablet is lost. In the first column, which is not printed here, the 
emperor seeks to show by many illustrations that changes in 
political institutions have been frequent in Roman history, and that 
the Romans of early days were liberal in their treatment of foreigners, 
even taking some of their rulers from beyond the limits of the city. 
Lines 2O-22 are commonly regarded as an apostrophe addressed 
by the emperor to himself. Mommsen regards them as verba. . . 
senatorwn acclamantium et simul oratorem prolixum irridentium 
(E.E. 7, 394). A resume of the speech of Claudius is given by 
Tacitus (Ann. 1 1. 24), and from this summary a few additions may 
be made to the speech as preserved on the tablet. The purpose of 
the emperor was to secure to the people of Gallia Comata the right 
to hold office in Rome and consequently to sit in the Roman senate 
(col. n, 1. 31). They had been Roman citizens for many years (Tac. 
Ann. 1 1. 23), but under the Julio-Claudian emperors the grant of 
Roman citizenship to provincial cities does not seem to have carried 
with it of necessity the right to hold Roman magistracies (cf. 
Mommsen, St. R. I, 490 and nn.; ibid. 3, 876). The only Gallic 
city outside Gallia Narbonensis having this fuller privilege was 
Lugudunum (col. n, 1. 29), which had been established as a colony 
in 43 B.C. It had been also especially favored by Claudius (cf. 

AMA [ 353 ] *3 


Kornemann, R.E. 4, 529). The policy of admitting to the senate 
provincials having Roman citizenship seems to have begun with 
Julius Caesar (cf. Willems, Le senat de la rtpublique rom. I, 594^".) 
and is mentioned by several Latin writers (cf. Suet. Caes. 76. 80; 
Bell. Afr. 28). It was continued by the triumvirs (cf. Willems, 
op. cit. i, 613), and followed by Augustus and Tiberius (col. n, 
11. 1-2). Eligibility to the Roman senate was probably granted to 
the people of Vienna in Gallia Narbonensis by Gaius in A.D. 39 
or 40 (cf. Kornemann, R.E. 4, 542) out of regard to his Viennese 
favorite Valerius Asiaticus, to whom Claudius refers in the words 
dirum nomen (col. n, 1. 14). On Valerius Asiaticus, cf. Tac. Ann. 
ii. 1-3, Prosop. 3, 352. The liberal policy of Claudius and his 
predecessors which tended to convert the Roman senate from an 
Italian into an imperial parliament was bitterly opposed in Rome 
(cf. Tac. Ann. II. 23; Seneca, Apocol. 3). On the oratio principis, 

</ PP-234/. 

Tacitus tells us (Ann. 11. 23) that the initiative in seeking ius 
adipiscendorum in urbe honorum was sought by the primores GaMiae, 
which leads Hirschfeld (Kleine Schr. 132) to the interesting sug- 
gestion that the project originated in the Gallic concilium and that 
a formal request for the privileges here mentioned was transmitted 
to the emperor. There is an important article on this inscription 
by Grupe in Zeitschr. d. Savigny-Stift., Roman. Abteil. 42 (1921), 
31-41 ycf. also Archiv, 6 (1920), 

(49-50 p. Chr.) 

CIL. in, S. i, 7251; Dessau, 214. 

T/. Claudius Caesar Aug. | G^r^anicus pontif. max., | trib. 
potest. vim, imp. xvi, p.p., | dicit: || 

5 Cum et colonias et municipia non solum | Ita//We, verum etiam 

provinciarum, item | civitaf/'umcuiusqueprovinciaelebareoneribuj | 

veh/W0rum praebendorum saepe temptavissem \ et cum satis multa 

10 remedia invenisse mihi viderer, \\ potuit tamen nequitiae hominum 

non satis per ea occurri ....... 

A marble tablet found at Tegea in Arcadia. The last part of 

[ 354 ] 


the inscription cannot be made out Trib. potest. vim shows that 
the document falls between Jan. 25, A.D. 49 and Jan. 25, A.D. 50. 
On the conventional form of an edict, cf. pp. 236^. The purpose 
of the edict is to relieve municipalities in Italy and in the provinces 
from the burdens put on them by the imperial post. On the cursus 
publicus, cf. Seeck, R.E. 4, 1846-1863; Hirschfeld, 190-204. 
Under the republic no system had been organized for the carriage 
of either private or official letters, but Augustus stationed runners, 
and later vehicles, at convenient intervals along the military roads 
(Suet. Aug. 49). These wagons served for the carriage of despatches 
and government officials. This inscription makes it clear that the 
cost of this service fell on the towns through which the post passed, 
that the burden was heavy, and that many attempts had been made 
to remedy abuses. What measures Claudius proposed, we do not 
know. Evidently they were not effective. Complaints in Italy 
led Nerva to relieve towns in the peninsula from the expense 
(Hirschfeld, 191, n. 2). Of Hadrian we are told (Hist. Aug. Hadr. 
7. 5), statum cur sum fiscalem instituit, ne magistratus (sc. municipales) 
hoc onere gravarentur. This reform would seem to have consisted 
in organizing the post under theyfja/j, but towns were not relieved 
from meeting the expense of the service (cf. however, Seeck, R.E. 4, 
1848). Hadrian's reform only meant that local magistrates were 
perhaps freed from the responsibility of providing teams and wagons. 
Septimius Severus was the first emperor to put the cost of main- 
taining the post on the fiscus (Hist. Aug. Sev. 14. 2), but it was soon 
transferred again to the civitates (Seeck, R.E. 4, 1849), anc * was 
the source of endless complaint through the third and fourth cen- 
turies, as we may infer from the Digest and from the Codes of 
Theodosius and Justinian. The cost included not only the furnishing 
of drivers, teams, vehicles, and fodder, but the maintenance of 
suitable mansiones at regular intervals to serve as inns for official 
travelers. One of the noteworthy things in this edict is the fact 
that the central government, even in this early period, could not 
always make effective its desire to right the wrongs done to the 
cities by its own officials. For the cursus publicus in the fourth 
century, cf. no. 156. 



(51 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1 123; IG. xn, I, 2, et corrigenda^ p. 206. 

IIv0ft>i/o9, 'ApicrToyevrjS HaTTOU, 'Ap ........ | .......... Xo- 

X ov > n6t<ra/ojO9 Te^tacrap^ot;, IIoXi^ap/AO9 [4>iXa>i/o9], . . . . | 

. . . . T^ evtcraiorara evrjveiCTai TCLL TTO\I aTrotcpiftara ........ || 

5 \^A.vri\rrarpov Kal Aiovvaiov 'Apre/uSaipou [7rpo]rTt/ia/c[]i/ 

rat f$ov\ai /cal ran, Sa/ia>6, /cvpwOtvTos roiJSe ro[i) A/ra<^t 
[T^ ovo/jLara avaypaffivat, VTTO rtSv \ crrp^araywv eVl /8a 
\i6ov \apriov ev rwi Tepevet, rov f AXtou uTrep . . . | . . . .ou 

10 crtTTTroi; . ||. . Aa/iayopai/ y9', Moipayewrj Tet/ioSt^ov, 

KXavSiov Kaicrapa Tepftaviicov Avrotcpdropa. . . . , 

/cr]a9 ra^ TroXei ra9 vrarpiov 7roXtTe/a9 /^at rcSi/ 
UTTO TcSi/ ......... [NJpa)]i;o9 KatVapos /cat /uLaprvpij 

T<5v dvBpwv rav TTOTI rai/ TroX^i/ ei5i/[otaj/] ........... 

This fragmentary inscription from Rhodes records the honors 
conferred upon the ambassadors sent to Rome at the time when the 
youthful Nero pleaded for the return of liberty to the Rhodians 
(Suet. Claud. 25; Nero^ 7). 

(p. 54 p. Chr.) 

Compt. rend, de Facad. d. inscr. et bel. lettr. 1915, 396; An. tp. 
1916, no. 42. 

M. Va^erio), Bostaris | f(ilio), Gal(eria tribu), Severo, | aedili, 

sufeti, nvir(o), | flamini primo || in municipio suo, | praef(ecto) 

5 auxilior(um) adversus Aedemo|nem oppressum bello. | Huic ordo 

municipii Volub^litanorum), ob mejrita erga rem pub(licam) et 

legatio||nem benegestam,quaabdivo | Claudio civitatem Rojmanam 

10 et conubium cum pere|grinis mulieribus immunitatem | annor(um) 

15 x incolas, bona civium bel||lo interfectorum quorum here|des non 

C 356 ] 


extabant suis impetrajvit. | Fabia Bira, Izeltae f(ilia), uxor, indul- 
ge) ntissimo viro, honore usa, impensam || remisit | et d(e) s(ua) 20 
p(ecunia) d(edit) d(e)dic(avit). 

Found at Volubilis in Mauretania Tingitana. It if subsequent 
to A.D. 54 because Claudius is called divus. Towards the end of 
the reign of Caligula the people of Mauretania Tingitana rose in 
revolt under Aedemon because of the murder of their king by the 
emperor; cf. Pliny, N.H. 5. I. n. This uprising was suppressed 
by Severus. It was probably in recognition of this service that 
Claudius granted to the people of Volubilis the favors recorded 
here. The town is made a muntcipium with immunity from imperial 
taxation for ten years (cf. Mus. Belge^ 28 (1924), iO3Jf.). The 
citizens are given the right of intermarriage (conubium) with foreign 
women. Usually the right of conubium was granted to peregrini^ 
and it is probable that this provision merely recognized marriages 
already contracted between citizens of Volubilis and women of 
other towns in order that their children may have the status 
of Roman citizens. The new municipality is given the property 
which had belonged to those of its citizens who had perished in the 
war and had died intestate. Ordinarily the estates of those who died 
without heirs and without leaving a will became imperial property 
(cf. Cuq, Journal des savants^ 1917, 481 ff.). The interpretation of 
inco/as in line 14 is uncertain. Most editors read inco/is and assume 
that the benefits granted by Claudius were conferred upon aliens. 
De Sanctis (Rivista di filologia^ 53 (1925), 372 jf.), however, 
retains the form as it occurs on the stone, and advances the 
theory that aliens resident in Volubilis were subject to a tax (in- 
tributio) which was now to be paid into the municipal treasury. 
For the incolae attributi in a Roman colony he refers to the charter 
of Urso (no. 26, chap. 103) where Mommsen reads incolaeque 
attribution*. The grant illustrates the Roman policy of encouraging 
the growth of the cities and of bringing indigenous peoples under 
Roman influence, as well as the generosity of Claudius in bestowing 
Roman citizenship. Severus had been sufes, duovir, and first flamen 
in Volubilis. As Cuq has shown, the introduction of the cult of the 
emperor, and the consequent appointment of a flamen, follow 

[ 357 ] 


immediately on the erection of a municipium (op. cit. 497). Severus 
was probably sufes in the peregrine city, and became duovir and 
flamen when Volubilis was made a municipium. The title sufes 
accords with the Punic name of the father and father-in-law of 
Severus, On the sufes, cf. Gsell, Histoire ancienne de fAfrique du 
Nord, 2, I93jf. For similar legatwnes, cf. nos. 115, 126, and An. 
ip. 1916, no. 1 20. This inscription is also discussed in Comptes 
rendus, 1916, 261 /, 2847.; 1918, 227 ff.\ 1920, 339/5 de 
Sanctis, Atti della reale accademia delle scienze di Torino^ 53 (1918), 
453 ff. ; 54 (i 9 1 9), 329/1 ; Weiss, Zeitschr. d. Savigny-Stift.^ Roman. 
Abteil. 1921, 639 ff. Other inscriptions from Volubilis testify to 
the continued favor of the emperors, e.g. An. ep. 1916, no. 100. 


(55 P- Chr.) 
Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1124; Ditt. Sy//. 3 810. 

<rvv \ Mei>e/eXe6 rc3 
e*a<n/za%ou Ata- 

* v(o0<riav Se) 'Ap^eSa/u[oi;, | d] eTTicrroXa a aTro- 
5 (rraXeio-a VTTO Ne/xwi/o? || KXavSiov Kaio-apos Merayenvvov *' \ 
KXauSto?, Oeov KXauStou u/o<?, Tiffepiov Ka/cr[a]|/309 
O teal Tep/^avtKov KatVapo^ 67701/09, 0\ov ^e 
0776701/09, Kat<rap S[6^9]a(TT09 rp^tai/t|Aco9, dpxtepevs, 
10 %6/ct)9 e^ou<rta9, auro^pa||rft)/5, 'PoSt'eoy dp^ovcn j3ov\p 


ia-rj rat rwv virdrcov ovofjiart \ rapa^Oevre^ 7rpo$ fie 
Te, Kal TO tyr)(pio'/jLa [aJlTreSoaar /cal Trepi TCOI/ OVCTKOV 
15 ^XG)o*ai/ a9 z/Te[t]||Xao"^ aurot9 vTrep rr)9 Travoifciov /JLOV 
teal | T^9 ei/ r^ ^7e/x[o]i/ta 8ta/xoz/r)9 eViTeXetrat ra> 
Trap* fjfjielv reifjiWfJLeva) 0ey Au KaTrercaXtw, | 7Tpi T' 

20 eve$dvi0av Sia K[Xau]||8tof Tej/iocrrparoi; roO d 

&v ?rpo9 

ur^5 &i/caia)v V7rap^6vra)v yvcopi\fjiov Kal Trap' vpelv ev rot9 
25 7rt<f>apO'rdroi<; /carapidfjLOv^/jLe]\\vov. '70) oi5^ a?ro 
evvo'i/c&s ?rp09 T^[I/ 7r6]|X 

[ 358 ] 


From Rhodes. This letter is included because of the reference 
to the restoration of liberty to the Rhodians by Claudius when 
Nero pleaded their case before the senate (Suet. Nero 7; Tac. Ann. 
12. 58). The Rhodians had, through internal dissensions or unwise 
alliances, suffered many changes in their relations to Rome. Tacitus 
says that their liberty had often been taken away or restored (libertas 
saepe adempta aut firmata). Cf. Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d'Asie^ 
II9/.; no. 51. 

(64 p. Chr.) 

J Apxaio\oyticbv AeXriW, 2 (1916), 6. 

Ex auctoritate | Neronis Cludi (sic) \ Caesaris Aug. Ger|manici 
pontif. || maxi., trib. pot. xi, | imp., cos mi, p.p. et | ex s. c. | L. 5 
Turpilius Dexter | proc. \>raedia />ublica || Gortuniorum />lcraqu|e 10 
a privatis occupata | restituit tcrmin|avitque. 

Found at Gortyn in Crete. The examination of the titles of 
Gortynian lands was authorized by the emperor in accordance with 
a decree of the senate. This procedure was probably due to the fact 
that Gortyn was in a senatorial province. The occupation of public 
lands by private citizens must have been of frequent occurrence, 
but this is the only inscription which bears directly upon the practice. 
The alienation of public lands was strictly forbidden in the charter 
of Urso (cf. no. 26, chap. 82). 


(67 p. Chr.) 


. Tr9 eft ie vvoias T tcai 

Traplvai || is KopivOov rfj Trpo Ta<rdpa>v Ka\av&<!)v 

ra VTTO- 

KCU fii?ei/ 10 

[ 359 ] 


TIJV o<rr)v OVK fycwpi; jo-are alreivOai,* frdwres ol TVJV 
rrjv &>9 | vvv IIe\o7roi/i/i7<roi> tcaroiKovvres "EXXyves \ \df3ere 
15 3\v0piav, dvi,<r<f)Opiav, fjv ouS* ev rofc evrv\\j((rrdro^ V/JL&V 
/ - 

7rai/T69 %poi/oi9 e<r^6T6 | fj 

crare. te v ovv 

ravrrjv TTJV Stopedv, f iva /JLOV 7T\toi/9 a 
20 S^ o Ka\ fjL/j,<f>oiJ,ai rov al&va || irpo^airavr\a'avTa /JLOV TO 

r^9 %aptro9* | Kal vvv Se ov Bi e\eov v/xa9, aXXA St' cvvoiav 
U/o|76Ta>, d/jLi/3o/jLai Se rou9 ^6ou9 V/JL&V, ($v Kal Sia | 7^9 /cai &a 
OaXdrrys alei fiov TrpovoovfAevwv 7r\7relpa/jiai, on /JLOI rrfKitcav 
25 evepyeTeiv 7rapecr%ov \\ 7r6Xe49 
9776/^0^69, | [Nepa>j/ 8e /ioi/09 /ca]t e 

From Acraephia (modern Karditza) in Greece. This document 
includes the edict of Caesar summoning the Greeks to Corinth, 
the proclamation which he issued there regarding the freedom of 
Greece, and a decree passed by the Acraephians (omitted here), 
dedicating an altar and offering sacrifices for the emperor. The 
senate was given the province of Sardinia to compensate for the 
loss of revenue derived from Greece, which was, by this proclamation, 
relieved from the payment of tribute. The prodigal gift of Nero was 
withdrawn by Vespasian (Pausanias, 7. 17. 2; Suet. Pesp. 8). The 
gratitude of the Acraephians was short-lived, for they carefully 
erased Nero's name on the inscription after his death. 



(54-68 p. Chr.) 

de Ruggiero, U arbitrate pubblico, 40; Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 335; 
Ditt. Or. Gr. 538. 

'Ef eVKTToXrJf?] 0\ov 7Lef3a 
5 K6>T09 TlTp<i)vt,o\\s OZ/^/3(p) TrpecrfSevTrjs \ /cal 

N6/)ft>|[i>]o9 KXauStou Kattrapo? | ^e/Saarov YeppaviKov, \ [teal] 

10 Ao[v#t]o9 IIouTrw Hpai\\crr^ 7ri]rp07ro^ N[6/>]a>i>o9 | KXa[u- 

8]iov [K]atV[ap]o9 %\[f$a<TT]ov T^p^aviKov d\po0Trj<rav 

15 rA pev ev \ Segidi elvai ^aya\ao-cr0)v y \\ rh Se v dpio-repdi 

toi; Katcrapo? \ 

[ 360 ] 


44 The stone containing this inscription was so placed that the 
reader, looking north, had on his right hand, eastward, Sagalassian 
territory, and on his left hand, westward, the imperial estate named 
Tymbrianassus" (Ramsay, A.J.A. 4 (1888), 267). The decision re- 
corded on this stone settled a boundary dispute between the city 
of Sagalassus and an imperial estate to which the village of Tym- 
brianassus belonged. On instructions issued by the emperor, the 
legatus of the emperor in Galatia and the imperial procurator acted 
as arbiters. Sagalassus was once a civitas foederata (Marquardt, 
St. Verw. I, 75; cf. Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 350, 352, 353), but was 
brought under Roman administration before the time of Strabo 
(Strabo, 12. 6. 5, p. 569). It is possible that her privileges had been 
abridged for the same reasons which had led to the change of status 
of the Rhodians (cf. no. 54). Petronius was legatus of Galatia 
early in the reign of Nero (Prosop. 3, no. 238) and Pupius was 
procurator of that province in the reign of both Claudius and Nero 
(CIG. 3991, add. p. 1 1 08). 


(69 p. Chr.) 

CIL. x, 7852; Dessau, 5947; Bruns, 710; Girard, p. 179; 
Riccobono, p. 256; Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 5, 325^".; de Ruggiero, 
L y arbitrate pubblico, 43. 

Imp. Othone Caesare Aug. cos. xv k. Apriles | descriptum et 
recognitum ex codice ansato L. Helvi Agrippae procons(ulis), quern 
protulit Cn. Egnatius | Fuscus scriba quaestorius, in quo scriptum 
fuit it quod infra scriptum est tabula v c(apitibus) vm | et vim et x: 
in idus Mart. L. Helvius Agrippa proco(n)s(ul) caussa cognita 
pronuntiavit: || cum pro utilitate publica rebus iudicatis stare con- 5 
veniat, et de caussa Patulcensijum M. luventius Rixa vir ornatissi- 
mus procurator Aug. saepius pronuntiaverit, fijnes Patulcensium 
ita servandos esse, ut in tabula ahenca a M. Metello ordinati j 
essent, ultimoque pronuntiaverit, Galillenses frequenter retractantes 
controversial nee parentes decreto suo se castigare voluisse, sed 
respectu clementiae optumi || maximique principis contentum esse 10 
edicto admonere, ut quiescerent et rebus | iudicatis starent et intra 

r 361 ] 


k. Octobres primas de praedis Patulcensium recederent vacuam|que 
possessionem traderent; quodsi in contumacia perse verassent, se in 
auctores | seditionis severe anim^dversurum; et post ea Caecilius 
Simplex vir clarissijmus, ex eadem caussa aditus a Galillensibus 

15 dicentibus: tabulam se ad earn rem || pertinentem ex tabulario prin- 
cipis adlaturos, pronuntiaverit, humanum esse | dilationem pro- 
bationi dari, et in k. Decembres trium mensum spatium dederit, 
in|tra quam diem nisi forma allata esset, se earn, quae in provincia 
esset, secuturum. | 

Ego quoque aditus a Galillensibus excusantibus, quod nondum 
forma allata esset, in | k. Februarias quae p(roximae) f(uerunt) 
spatium dederim, et moraw illis possessoribus intellegam esse iu- 

20 cun||dam: Galilenses ex finibus Patulcensium Campanorum, quos 
per vim occupaverant, intra k. | Apriles primas decedant. Quodsi 
huic pronuntiationi non optemperaverint, sciant, | se longae con- 
tumaciae et iam saepe denuntiatae animadversioni obnoxios | futuros. 
In consilio fuerunt: M. lulius Romulus leg. pro pr., T. Atilius 
Sabinus q. | pro pr., M. Stertinius Rufus f., Sex. Aelius Modestus, 

25 P. Lucretius Clemens, M. Domitius || Vitalis, M. Lusius Fidus, 
M. Stertinius Rufus. | Signatores: Cn. Pompei Ferocis. Aureli | 
Galli. M. Blossi Nepotis. C. Cordi Felicis. L. Vigelli Crispini. 
L. Valeri Fausti. M. Lutajti Sabini. L. Coccei Genialis. L. Ploti 
Veri. D. Veturi Felicis. L. Valeri Pepli. 

On a bronze tablet found in 1866 in Sardinia. This is a decree 
of the proconsul L. Helvius Agrippa settling a dispute concerning 
land of two peoples of Sardinia. The quarrel had lasted from 1 1 4 B.C. 
to A.D. 69. Four steps in the adjudication of the matter are recorded 
in the document: the decisions, (i) of the proconsul Metellus in 
1 14 B.C. (1. 7), (2) of M. luventius Rixa, procurator in A.D. 66-67 
(11. 1 2/.), (3) of the proconsul Caecilius Simplex (11. 1 3/.), and (4) of 
the proconsul L. Helvius Agrippa (11. 2O/.). Metellus had awarded 
the lands in dispute to the Patulcenses, but the Galillenses continued 
to hold them by force (1. 20). Rixa confirmed the decision of 
Metellus and ordered the Galillenses to vacate the territory in 
question before a fixed date, or to be adjudged auctores seditionis 
(11. I2/.). Simplex granted a delay of two months, from October i 
to December I, in order that the Galillenses might obtain a copy 

[ 362 j 


of the decree of Metellus from the tabularium principis. Agrippa 
continued the respite for two months more, but since the Galillenses 
did not submit the forma from Rome, he issued this decree, in 
accordance with the forma in the province, on Mar. 1 3 (1. 4), 
and a copy of it was furnished on Mar. 18 (1. i) by Cn. Egnatius 
Fuscus, the scriba quaestorius of the provincial governor (Mommsen, 
St. R. i, 348, n. 2; 349, n. 2), to the Patulcenses, who had it 
inscribed on this tablet. Sardinia was in charge of imperial procura- 
tors up to A.D. 67, when it was turned over to the senate (Pausanias, 
7. 17. 3). Rixa, probably the last procurator, was succeeded by the 
proconsul Simplex, whom Agrippa followed. Mommsen is of the 
opinion that a governor did not have the power to settle a question 
like this one in Sardinia, but that it had to be referred to the em- 
peror. However that may be, petitions seem to have been sent to 
the emperor, and probably the delay granted by Rixa was made at 
the suggestion of the emperor (11. 8 f.). Strangely enough the copy 
of the decree of Metellus in the tabularium principis is to be secured 
by the Galillenses, not by the governor. Agrippa has eight men in 
his consilium (11. 23 ff.}. At the head of the list stand his legatus pro 
praetore and his quaestor pro praetore. The copy is in tablet v, 
chapp. vin-x, in the codex ansatus of Agrippa, which is produced 
for the purpose of making the copy by his scriba quaestorius (11. 2 jf.). 
It is signed by eleven witnesses (11. 25 jf.), whose names stand in 
the genitive on the bronze tablet, because on the copy they were 
probably preceded by seals. In 11. 8-9 the engraver should have cut 
controversiam and in 1. 19 moram. Outside of the literature cited 
in the heading, cf. also Karlowa, i, 818 ff. On the decreta, cf. 
p. 239, n. 4. On arbitration, cf. pp. 152^. 


(ca. 72 p. Chr.) 

C1L. x, 8038; Bruns, 80; Girard, p. 190; Riccobono, p. 320. 

Imp. Caesar Vespasianus Augustus | magistratibus et senatoribus | 
Vanacinorum salutem dicit. | Otacilium Sagittam, amicum et 
procu||ratorem meum, ita vobis praefuisse, | ut testimonium vestrum 5 
mereretur, | delector. | De controversia finium, quam ha|betis cum 
Marianis, pendenti ex || is agris, quos a procuratore meo | Publilio 10 

[ 363 ] 


Memoriale emistis, ut | finiret Claudius Clemens procu|rator meus, 
15 scrips! ei et mensorem | misi. || Beneficia tributa vobis ab divo | 

Augusto post septimum consula|tum, quae in tempora Galbae re- 
20 tijnuistis, confirmo. | Egerunt legati || Lasemo Leucani f. sacerd(os) 

Aug(usti), | Eunus Tomasi f. sacerd(os) Augusti, | C. Arruntio 

Catellio Celere, M. | Arruntio Aquila cos. mi idus Octobr. | 

A bronze tablet found in Corsica. The letter of the emperor 
not only provided for the settlement of a territorial dispute with 
the colonia Mariana (cf. Abbott, Class. Phil. 10 (1915), 374), but 
it also confirmed certain privileges granted by Augustus, which had 
been allowed to lapse in the time of Galba. On the settlement of 
territorial disputes, cf. pp. I54/. On the form of a rescript, cf. 

(76 p. Chr.) 

CIL. ii, 1610; Dessau, 1981. 

Apollini Aug. | municipal Igabrenses | beneficio imp. Caesaris 
5 Aug. Vespasiani | c. R. c. cum suis per honorem \\ Vespasiano vi 
cos., M. Aelius M. fil. Niger aed. | d. d. 

Found on the site of Igabrum in Baetica. Vespasian showed 
special favor to Spain, perhaps because of its early adherence to 
his cause; cf. Tac. Hist. 2. 67, 86, 97; 3. 44. Probably in 74 he 
conferred Latium minus on it. To certain individuals and to certain 
communities he granted Roman citizenship; cf. Weynand, R.E. 
6, 2659 /., 2661, 2681. Furthermore, in the inscriptions there 
are ninety cases in which the names of Spanish towns, the enrolment 
of their citizens in the Flavian tribe, Quirina, or the application 
of the epithet municipium Flavium probably indicate a remodelling 
by Vespasian; cf. McElderry, Journ. Rom. Studies, 8 (1918), 68, 
78. Altogether under Vespasian at least four hundred communities 
received new charters; cf. McElderry, loc. cit. 78. On Vespasian's 
grant to the Saborenses, cf. no. 61. His liberal policy in Spain was 
followed by Domitian, who granted charters to several cities; cf. 
nos. 64, 65. C. R. c. in our inscription is an abbreviation ofcivitatem 
Romanam consecuti. 

[ 364 ] 


( 7 8p.Chr.) 

CIL. n, 1423; Dessau, 6092; Bruns, 81; Girard, p. 190; 
Riccobono, p. 320. 

Imp. Caej. Vespasianus Aug. pon|tifex maximus, tribuniciae | 
potestatis vim, imp. xnx, consul | vm, p. p., salutem dicit mi 
viris et || decurionibus Saborensium. | Cum multis difficultatibus 5 
infirmita|tem vestram premi indicetis, per|mitto vobis oppidum sub 
nomine meo, ut | voltis, in planum extruere. Vecti||galia, quae ab 10 
divo Aug. accepisse dicijtis, custodio; si qua nova adicere voljtis, 
de his procos. adire debebitis, ego | enim nullo respondente constitu|- 
ere nil possum. Decretum vestrum || accepi vm ka/. August. 15 
Legatos dimi|si mi ka/. easdem. Valete. | Ilviri C. Cornelius 
Severus et M. Septimi|us Severus publica pecunia in aere | inci- 

Bronze tablet found at Cafiete in Baetica, Spain, in the sixteenth 
century, and now lost. The titles fix the date as in the latter half 
of A.D. 78. Vespasian permits the Saborenses to rebuild their town 
on a new site in the plain, with the title Flavia. The inscription is 
important as attesting imperial control over municipal taxation, and 
as showing the procedure which a town of this class must follow 
before laying new taxes. The central government required munici- 
palities to submit to it their plans for new imposts, for fear its own 
sources of revenue would be diminished by local taxation. Whether 
the vectigalia referred to here took the form of an octroi, as at 
Palmyra (cf. no. 89; p. 140, n. 2; Dessau, Hermes, 19 (1884), 
486533), or not, it is impossible to say (cf. Liebenam, St. Verw. 
22; Marquardt, St. Verw. I, 157, n. 5). To Stratonicea, a newly- 
founded city, Hadrian even turned over a tax which had previously 
been paid to the fiscus (cf. no. 83). The title Flavia follows about 
four years after the granting of Latin rights to all towns in Spain 
(cf. Plin. N.H. 3. 3. 30). On Vespasian's reconstruction of Spain, 
cf. no. 60. 

[ 365 ] 




(69-79 p. Chr.) 

CIL. xii, 6038; Dessau, 6964; Riccobono, p. 159; Bruns, 29; 
Carette, Les assemblies prov. de la Gaule rom. 445 ff. 

Afarbone .flamen \ cum rent divinam 

faciet sacrificabi tque, lictores q ui magistratibus apparent , ei apparento. \ 

secundum /egem iusque eius provinciae 

.... | ei in decurionibus senatuve sententiae dicendae 

5 signandique . . .item \\ inter decuriones jenatoresve sub- 

sellioprimo spectandi* ludos publicos ius potestasque esto. \ 

uxorfaminis veste alba aut purpurea vestita festis diebus 

.... | neve invita iurato neve corpus hominis mortui 

attingito neve \ nisi necessani hominis erit eique 

spectaculis publicis eius provinciae loco. . . .inter esse liceto. \ 

10 De honoribus eius qui flamen fuerit. \\ Si quiflamen /Writ adversus 
hanc legem nihil fecerit, turn is qui flamen erit cum primum poterit 
ad legatos provinciae referto \ iique per tabellzs iurati decernant, 
placeatne ei qui flamonio abierit permitti stetuam sibi ponere. Cut 
ita decreverint \ ius esse Jtatuae ponendae nomenque suum patrisque 
et unde sit et quo anno ftzmen fuerit inscribendi, ei \ Narbo\\z intra 
fines eius templi statuae ponendae ius esto, nisi cui imperator Caesar 
Augustus inter dixerit (?). Eidem \ in curia sua et concilio provinciae 

15 Narbonesis inter sui ordinis secundum \zgem || sententiae 

dicendae signandique ius esto, item spectaculo publico in provincia 
edendo inter decuriones inter esse />rfl*|textato eisque diebus, quibus, 
cum flamen esset, sacrificium fecerit, ea veste pub/ice uti y qua in 
eo faciendo usus est. \ 

Si flamen in civitate esse desiVriV. | Si flamen in civitate esse 

desierit, neque ei subrogatus erit, turn uti quis^ | in 

triduo quo certior factus erit et poterit, Narbon* sacra facito omniaque 

20 secundum hanc legem per reliquam || partem eius anni eo ordine 
habeto, quo annuorum fiaminum habentur, eique si ea fecerit per 
dies non minus \ xxx, siremps lex ius causaque esto, quae flamini 
Augusta/i* ex hac legefacto erit. \ 

Quo loco concilium provinciae habendum sit. \ Qui in concilium 

[ 366 j 


provinciae convenerint Narbonem, ibi id habento. Si quid extra 
Narbonem finesve Narbone\sium concilio habito actum erit, id ius 
r&tumque ne esto (?) || 

De pecutf/W sacris destinata. \ Qui flamonio abierit, is ex ea pe- 25 
cunia quae sacris destinata erit, quod eius superfuerit, statu\&$ 

imaginesveimperatorisCaestfr/V^/^w// arbitratuty eiusqui 

eo anno />n?|vinciae praeerit intra idem temp/um dedicato 

seque omnia sicut hac lege cautum est de \ ea re, fecisse apud eum qui 
rutiones provinciae putabit probato . \\ tempi 30 

Bronze tablet found in 1888 at Narbonne, now in the Louvre. 
The upper left hand and the lower right hand corners are lost; see 
facsimile in Carette, op. cit. 445. Perhaps the inscription belongs 
to the reign of Vespasian; cf. Krascheninnikof, Philol. 53 (1894), 
161 ff. Of most interest to one who is studying the concilia are the 
paragraphs beginning de honoribus eius and quo loco concilium. From 
the first paragraph it is clear that the concilium meets under the 
presidency of the flamen, who takes the initiative in laying the 
business of the meeting before the legati, or representatives of the 
several cities. In this important matter they vote by secret ballot, 
as the senators at Urso and Malaca did in similar circumstances 
(cf. nos. 26 and 64), and under oath. Probably on ordinary matters 
an oral vote was taken, without an oath. From the fact that the 
right of the emperor to interpose a veto in this case is set forth in 
the law, we may infer with probability that he rarely intervened 
(cf. no. 97). From the paragraph beginning quo loco concilium it 
seems highly probable that the assembly met in the temple of Rome 
and Augustus, remains of which have been found at Narbonne, 
and, if Mommsen's restoration at the end of this paragraph is 
correct, the concilium^ like the Roman senate, could not legally 
meet outside the limits of the city. 

(82 p. Chr.) 

CIL. ix, 5420; Bruns, 82; Girard, p. 191; Riccobono, p. 321. 

Imp. Caesar divi Vespasiani f. | Domitianus Augustus | pontifex 
max., trib. potest, imp. n, | cos. vin designat. vim, p. p., salutem 
dicit || mi viris et decurionibus Faleriensium ex Piceno. | 5 

[ 367 ] 


Quid constituerim de subsicivis cognita causa | inter vos et 
Firmanos, ut notum haberetis, | huic epistulae subici iussi. | 

10 P. Valeric Patruino cos. || xmi k. Augustas. | 

Imp. Caesar divi Vespasiani Domitianus | Aug. adhibitis 
utriusque ordinis splen|didis viris cognita causa inter Fale|rienses 
15 et Firmanos pronuntiavi quod || suscriptum est. | 

Et vetustas litis, quae post tot annos | retractatur a Firmanis 

adversus | Falerienses, vehementer me movet, | cum possessorum 

20 securitati vel mi||nus multi anni sufficere possint, | et divi Augusti, 

diligentissimi et in|dulgentissimi erga quartanos suos | principis, 

25 epistijla, qua admonuit | eos, ut omnia subpsiciva sua collige||rent 

et venderent, quos tarn salubri | admonitioni paruisse non dubito; | 

propter quae possessorum ius confirmo. | Valete. 

D(atum) xi k. Aug. in Albano, | agente curam T. Bovio Vero, || 
30 legatis P. Bovio Sabino, | P. Petronio Achille. D(ecreto) d(ecurio- 
num) p(ublice). 

Bronze tablet found at Falerio in Picenum in 1595, now lost. 
Domitian's name in 11. 2 and 1 1 and that of the second consul in 

1. 9 have been cut off. The phrase adhibitis utriusque ordinis splen- 
didis viris (11. 1213) implies that the consilium, or, as it was later 
called, the consistorium of the emperor was composed of both senators 
and knights, but that its composition had not become fixed, as it 
did under Hadrian (cf. Herzog, 2, 369^., 757/. ; Mommsen, St. R. 

2, 988 ff.\ Hirschfeld, 340, n. 2; Seeck, R. E. 4, 927 /.; Cuq, 
Mim. sur le consilium principis). The letter settles the ownership 
of small parcels of land in the possession of Firmum, but claimed 
by Falerio. On the division of village lands, cf. Liebenam, St. Verw. 
1-13. This inscription makes it highly probable that Falerio was 
a colony of veterans founded by Augustus (11. 22^.; cf. Mommsen, 
Hermes, 18 (1883), 173; GIL. ix, p. 517). For the method of 
procedure before the emperor's consilium, cf. pp. 241 ff. For the 
concluding paragraph, cf. p. 238. For other cases of arbitration, cf. 
nos. 8, 10, 46, 57, 58, 59, 104, and pp. 

[ 368 ] 


(8 1-84 p. Chr.) 

C1L. n, 1963; Dessau, 6088; Bruns, 30^; Girard, p. 108; 
Riccobono, p. 162. 

R(ubrica). Vt magistrates civitatem Roman am consequantur. Coi.i 

XXI. . .Qui uvir aedilis quaestor ex hac lege factus erit y cives 
Romani sunto, cum post annum magistratu \ abierint, cum parentibus 
coniugibusque ac liberij, qui legitumis nuptis quae|siti in potestatem 
parentium fuen'nt, item nepotibus ac neptibus filio | nat/s natabus^ 
qui quaeque in potestate parentium fuerinf, dum ne plures c(ives) 
R(omani) | sint, quara quod ex h(ac) l(ege) magistratus creare 
oportet. || 

R. Vt qui civitat(cm) Roman(am) consequantur, maneant 5 
in eorundem m(ancipio) m(anu) | potestate. | 

XX II. Qui quaere ex h. 1. exve edicto imp(eratoris) Caesaris 
Aug(usti) Vespasiani, imp(eratoris)ve Titi | Caesaris Aug(usti), aut 
imp(eratoris) Caesaris Aug(usti) Uomitiani p(atris) p(atriae), civi- 
tatem Roman(am) | consecutus consecuta erit: is ea in eius, qui 
c(ivis) R(omanus) h(ac) l(ege) factus erit, potestate || manu mancipio, 10 
cuius esse deberct, si civitate Romana mutatus | mutata non esset, 
esto idque ius tutoris optandi habeto, quod | haberet, si a cive Ro- 
mano ortus orta neq(ue) civitate mutatus mu|tata esset. 

R. Vt qui c(ivitatem) R(omanam) consequently iura 
libertorum retineant. | 

XXIII. Qui quaeve ex h(ac) l(ege) exve edicto imp(eratoris) 
Caes(aris) Vesp(asiani) Aug(usti), imp(eratoris)ve Titi Caes(aris) 
Vespasian(i) Au(gusti), || aut imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) Domitiani 15 
Aug(usti), c(ivitatem) R(omanam) consecutus consecuta erit: is in | 
libertos libertasve suos suas paternos paternas, qui quae in c(ivitatem) 
R(omanam) non | venerit, deque bonis eorum earum et is, quae 
libertatis causa inposita | sunt, idem ius eademque condicio esto, 
quae esset, si civitate mutates | mutate non esset. 

AMA [ 3 6 9 ] 24 


R. De praefecto imp(eratoris) Caesaris Domitiani Aug- 
(usti). || 

20 XXII 1 1. Si eius municipi decuriones conscriptive municipesve 
imp(eratori) Caesar/ Domitian(o) | Aug(usto) p(atri) p(atriae) 
nviratum communi nomine municipum eius municipi dejtulerint 
imp(erator)yue Domitian^ Caesar Aug(ustus) p(ater) p(atriae) eum 
nviratum receperit | et loco suo praefectum quern esse iusserit: is 
praefectus eo iure esto, quo | esset si eum nvir(um) i(ure 'i(icundo) 
ex h(ac) l(ege) solum creari oportuisset, isque ex h(ac) 1 alus || 

25 uvir i(ure) d(icundo) creatus esset. 

R. De iure praef(ecti), qui a nvir(o) relictus 

XXV. Ex nviris qui in eo municipio i(ure) v 
erunt), uter postea ex eo municipio proficiscetur | ne^ 

id municip/um esse se rediturum arbitrabitur, quern | j i 

municipi non minorem quam annorum xxxv ex | decurk as 

30 conscriptisque relinquere volet, facito ut is iuret per || lovem et 
divom Aug(ustum) et div<?m Claudium et divom Vesp(asianum) 
Aug(ustum) et divom | Titum Aug(ustum) et Geniurn imp(era- 
toris) Caesaris Domitiani Aug(usti) deosque Penates; | quae 
nvir(um) 5 qui i(ure) d(icundo) p(raeest), h(ac) l(ege) facere oporteat, 
se, dum praefectus erit, d(um) t(axaf) quae eo | tempore fieri possint 
facturum, neque adversus ea /acturum scientem | d(olo) m(alo); 
et cum ita iuraverit, praefectum eum eius municipi relinquito. E\ \\ 

35 qui ita praefectus relictus erit, donee in id municipium alteruter 
ex nviris | adierit, in omnibus rebus id ius e#que potestas esto, prae- 
terquam de praefec|to relinquendo et de c(ivitate) R(omana) con- 
sequenda, quod ius quaeque potestas h(ac) l(ege) | nvirij qui iure 
dicundo praeerunt datur. Isque dum praefectus erit quo|tiensque 
municipium egressus erit, ne plus quam singulis diebus abesto. || 

40 R. De iure iurando nvir(um) et aedil(ium) et q(uaes- 
torum). | 

XXVI. Duovir(i) qui in eo municipio i(ure) d(icundo) p(rae- 
sunt), item aediles qui in eo municipio sunt, item | quaestores qui 
in eo muncipio sunt, eorum quisque in diebus quinq(ue) | proxumis 
post h(anc) l(egem) datam; quique uvir(i) aediles quaestoresve postea 

[ 370 ] 


ex h(ac) l(ege) | creati erunt, eorum quisque in diebus quinque 
proxumis, ex quo nvir || aedil/s quaestor esse coeperit, priusquam 45 
decuriones conscriptive | habeantur, iuranto pro condone per lovem Col. n 
et divom Aug(ustum) et divom Claudi|um et divom Vespasianum 
Aug(ustum) et divom Titum Aug(ustum) et Genium Domitiani | 
Aug(usti) deosque Penates: se, quodqusmque ex h(ac) l(ege) exqu* 
re communi m(unicipum) m(unicipi) Flavi | Salpensani censeat, 
recte esse facturum, neyue adversus h(anc) l(egem) remve com- 
mu||nem municipum eius municipi facturum scientem d(olo) m(alo), 5 
quosque prohijbere possit prohibiturum; neque se aliter consilium 
habiturum neq(ue) aliter | daturum neque sententiam dicturum, 
quain ut ex h(ac) l(ege) exque re communi | municipum eius muni- 
cipi censeat fore. Qui ita non iuraverit, is HS x (milia) | municipibus 
eius municipi d(are) d(amnas) esto, eiusque pecuniae deque ea 
pecunia mu||nicipum eius municipi cui volet, cuique per hanc legem 10 
licebit, actio peti|tio persecutio esto. 

R. De intercessione nvir(um) et aedil(ium) et q(uaes- 

torum). | 

XXVII. Qui nvir(i) aut aediles aut quaestores eius municipi 
erunt, his nvir(is) inter | se et cum aliquis alterutrum eorum aut 
utrumque ab aedile aedilibus | aut quaestors quaestoribus appellabit, 
item aedilibus inter se, item quaestoribus inter se inter||cedendi, in 15 
triduo proxumo quam appellatio facta erit poteritque | intercedi, 
quod eius adversus h(anc) l(egem) non fiat, et dum ne amplius 
quam semel | quisque eorum in eadem re appelletur, ius potestasque 
esto, neve quis | adversus ea qui^, qu0m intercessum erit, facito. | 

R. De servis apud nvir(um) manumittendis. || 

XXVIII. Si quis municeps municipi Flavi Salpensani, qui 20 
Latinus erit, aput nvir(os), | qui iure dicundo praeerunt eius muni- 
cipi, servom suom servamve suam | ex servitute in libertate/n manu- 
miserit, liberum liberamve esse iusserit, | dum ne quis pupillus neve 
quae virgo mulierve sine tutore auctore | quern quamve manu- 
mittat, liberum liberamve esse iubeat: qui ita || manumissus liberve 25 
esse iussus erit, liber esto, quaeque ita manumissa | liberavc esse 
iussa erit, libera esto, uti qui optumo iure Latini libertini li|beri 
sunt erunt; r/um is qui minor xx annorum erit ita manumittat, | 

[ 37 I ] 24-a 


si causam manumittendi iustam esse is numerus decurionum, per 
quern | decreta h(ac) l(ege) facta rata sunt, censuerit. 

R. De tutorum datione, || 

30 XXIX. Cui tutor non erit incertusve erit, si is e#ve municeps 
municipi Flavi Salpensani | erit, et pupilli pupillaeve non erunt, 
et ab nviris, qui i(ure) d(icundo) p(raeerunt) eius municipi, postu-| 
laverit, uti sibi tutorem det, et eum, quern dare volet, nominaverit: 
turn is, | a quo postulatum erit, sive unum sive plures collegas 
habebit, de omnium colle|garum sententia, qui turn in eo municipio 

35 intrave fines municipi eius er#t, || causa cognita, si ei videbitur, 
eum qui nominatus erit tutorem dato. Sive | is eave, cuius nomine 
ita postulatum erit, pupil(lus) pupillave erit, sive is, a quo | postu- 
latum erit, non habebit collegam, collegavz eius in eo municipio 
intrave | fines eius municipi nemo erit: turn is, a quo ita postulatum 
erit, causa cojgnita in diebus x proxumis, ex decreto decurionum, 

40 quod cum duae partes || decurionum non minus adfuerint, factum 
erit, eum, qui nominatus | erit, quo ne ab iusto tutore tutela #beat, 
ei tutorem dato. Qui tutor h(ac) l(ege) j datus erit, is ei, cui datus 
erit, quo ne ab iusto tutore tutela tfbeat, tarn Justus | tutor esto, 
quam si is c(ivis) R(omanus) et ei adgnatus proxumus c(ivis) R(o- 
manus) tutor esset. | 

In 1851 two bronze tablets, one with five columns, the other 
with two columns of text, were found near Malaga. They were 
protected from injury by a cloth wrapping and a casing of tiles, so 
that they had evidently been buried deliberately, perhaps to escape 
seizure. (For other theories, cf. Dessau, Wien. Stud. 24 (1902), 
240; Mommsen, Ges. Schr. I, 283.) The tablet with two columns 
contains a part of the charter of Salpensa, the other, a part of the 
charter of Malaca (no. 65). The provision made for choosing 
Domitian duovir (chap, xxiv) and the form of oath to be taken by 
magistrates (chapp. xxn, xxm) show that the charter of Salpensa 
was granted by Domitian, and consequently subsequent to Sept. 
A.D. 8 1. A similar conclusion may be drawn for Malaca (no. 65, 
chap. LIX). The document antedates A.D. 84 because Domitian 
does not bear the cognomen Germanicus. To confine our attention 
to the political relations which these two towns bore to the outside 

[ 372 ] 


world, it is clear that Salpensa, at least, had only Latium minus, 
because only local magistrates with their families and with the 
members of the second generation in the male line acquired Roman 
citizenship (chap, xxi, cf. p. 192). Evidently decurions who had 
not held a magistracy did not enjoy this privilege. Nothing is said 
about the acquisition of Roman citizenship in the extant fragments 
of the lex Malacitana^ but in all probability the two towns had the 
same political status, and it is proper to take it for granted that the 
same provisions held good for both municipalities. The phrase, 
44 if any citizen of the mun. Flav. Salp. qui Latinus erit" (chap, 
xxvin), shows that there were Roman citizens, as well as Latins, 
in Salpensa, and they had the right to vote both in Salpensa and in 
Rome, and in the lex Malacitana (chap. LIII) provision is made for 
their assignment to a particular curia. 

Up to the time of Vespasian Malaca was a civitas foederata, and 
Salpensa probably a civitas stipendiaria (Mommsen, Ges. Schr. I, 
293 ff.}. This emperor gave them Latin rights (Pliny, N.H. 3. 3. 
30). That this gift of Latin rights was made by Vespasian in the 
case of Salpensa, at least, is evident from the reference to this 
emperor in the charter (chapp. xxn, xxm). It is confirmed by 
Titus and Domitian. Since these privileges emanate from the 
Flavian emperors, the two towns are municipia Flaviana y like so 
many other Spanish municipalities (GIL. n, S. p. 1160). 

In the lex Salpensa provision is made for the election of Domitian 
to the duovirate. Under the early empire other members of the 
imperial family might receive this honor. Tiberius seems to have 
restricted the privilege to the emperor (p. 63). In Salpensa the 
prefect representing the emperor is chosen by him, but in other 
municipalities the power to make the choice could be delegated to 
the local senate (GIL. ix, 3044), in which case the prefect bore the 
title praefectus imperatoris ex senatus consulto. 

The article in the lex Malacitana which governs the election 
of patroni prescribes a quorum of two-thirds of the members of 
the senate and secret balloting, but it does not expressly forbid 
the election of a Roman senator cum imperio (chap. LXI; cf. 
no. 26). 

That many of the provisions in these charters were adopted from 

[ 373 ] 


the corresponding usages in the city of Rome seems to be clear from 
the lex Malacitana, chap. LXIV. 

Unfortunately chap. LXIX which deals with the judiciary is in- 
complete. A minimum of 1000 sesterces and a maximum, not 
named, are certainly fixed. Perhaps in suits involving less than I ooo 
sesterces, the aedile was competent (Mommsen, Ges. Schr. I, 335), 
while actions involving more than 1000 sesterces and less than the 
unnamed maximum went before the duovir. Cases running beyond 
the maximum were probably heard by the proconsul (cf. commentary 
on no. 27). So far as we can infer, this local jurisdiction applied 
to all citizens, whether Romans or Latins. 

For the earlier literature on these charters, cf. Riccobono, p. 163. 
For the text with a commentary, cf. Mommsen, Ges. Schr. I, 
267 ff. A translation of the two charters and a commentary on 
them may be found in Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, 61 ff. 


(8 1-84 p. Chr.) 

OIL. n, 1964; Dessau, 6089; Bruns, 30^; Girard, p. 112; 
Riccobono, p. 168. 

Col. i. R(ubrica). De nominatione candidatorum. 

LI. Si ad quern diem professio \ fieri oportebit, nullius nomine 
aut | pauciorum, quam tot quod creari opor|tebit, professio facta 

5 ent sive ex his, | quorum nomine professio facta erit, || pauciores 
erunt quorum h(ac) l(ege) comitiis ra|tionem habere oporteat, quam 
tot quot cre|ari oportebit: turn is qui comitia ha|bere debebit pro- 
scribito, ita u(t) d(e) p(lano) r(ecte) l(egi) p(ossint), | tot nomina 

10 eorum, quibus per h. 1. || eum honorem petere licebit, quod de|runt 
ad eum numerum, ad quern crea|ri ex h. 1. oportebit. Qui ita 
proscripti | erunt, ii, si volent, aput eum, qui ea co|mitia habiturus 

15 erit, singuli singu||los eiiusdem condicion/s nominato, | ique item, 
qui turn ab is nominati erunt, si | volent, singuli singulos aput 
eunjdem e^demque condicione nomina | to; isque, aput quern ea 

20 nominatio fac||ta erit, eorum omnium nomina projponito ita u. d. 
p. r. L p., deque is om|nibus item comitia habeto, perinde | ac si 
eorum quoque nomine ex h. 1. de | petendo honore professio facta 

[ 374 ] 


esset || intrapraestitutum diem, petereque | eum honorem suasponte 25 
o?epissent ne|que eo proposito destitissent. | 

R. De comitiis habendis. | 

LI I. Ex nviris qui nunc sunt, item ex is, qui || deinceps in eo 30 
municipio nviri erunt, | uter maior natu erit, aut, si ei causa qu|ae 
incident q(uo) m(inus) comitia habere pos|sit, turn alter ex his 
comitia nvir., item | aedilibus, item quaestoribus rogandis || sub- 35 
rogandis h. 1. habeto; utique ea dis|tributione curiarum, de qua supra 
con|prehensum est, suffragia ferri debe|bunt, ita per tabellam feran- 
tur facito. | Quique ita creati erunt, ii annum unum || aut, si in 40 
alterius locum creati erunt, | reliqua parte eiius anni in eo honore | 
sunto, quern suffragis erunt consecuti. | 

R. In qua curia incolae suffragia | ferant. || 

LI II, Quicumque in eo municipio comitia nviris, | item aedili- 45 
bus, item quaestoribus rogan|dis habebit, ex curiis sorte ducito 
unam, | in qua incolae, qui cives R. Latinive cives | erunt, suffra- 
gia^ ferant, eisque in ea cu||ria suffragi latio esto. | 50 

R. Quorum comitis rationem habejri oporteat. | 

LIIII. Qui comitia habere debebit, is primum uvir. | qui iure 
dicundo praesi^t ex eo genere in||genuorum hominum, de quo h. 1. 55 
cau|tum conprehensumque est, deinde proxi|mo quoque tempore 
aediles item quaesto|res ex eo genere ingenuorum hominum, | de 
quo h. 1. cautum conprehensumque est, || creandoj curato; dum ne 60 
cuiius comi|tis rationem habeat, qui nviratum pe|tet qui minor 
annorum xxv erit, qui|ve intra quinquennium in eo honore | 
fuerint; item qui aedilitatem quaesturam||ve petet, qui minor quam 65 
annor. xxv erit, | quive in earum qua causa erit, propter | quam, si Col. n 
c. R. esset, in numero decurio|num conscriptorumve eum esse non 
lice | ret. 

R. De suffragio ferendo. | 

LV. Qui comitia ex h. 1. habebit, is municipes cu||riatim ad 5 
suffragium ferendum voca|to ita, ut uno vocatu omnes curias in | 
suffragium vocet, eaeque singulae in | singulis consaeptis suffragium 
per ta|bellam ferant. Itemcjue curato, ut ad cis||tam cuiiusque curiae 10 
ex municipibus | eiius municipi terni sint, qui eiius cu|riae non sint, 

[ 375 ] 


qui suffragia custodiant | diribeant, et uti antequam id faciant 

15 qujisque eorum iurent, se rationem suffra||giorum fide bona habi- 

turum relaturum|que. Neve prohitato, q. m. et qui hono|rem 

petent singulos custodes ad singujlas cistas ponant lique custodes 

20 ab eo | qui comitia habebit, item ab his positi || qui honorem petent, 

in ea curia quisjque eorum suffragiuw ferto, ad cuiius cujriae cistam 

custos positus erit, e0rum|que sufFragia perinde iusta rataque sun|to 

25 ac si in sua quisque curia suffragium || tulisset. 

R. Quid de his fieri oporteat, qui | suffragiorum numero 

pares erunt. | 

LVI. Is qui ea comitia habebit, uti quisque curiae | cuiius plura 
quam alii suffragia habuejrit, ita priorem ceteris eum pro ea curia || 

30 factum creatumque esse renuntiato, | donee is numerus, ad quern 
creari oporjtebit, expletus sit. Qua in curia totidem | suffragia duo 
pluresve habuerint, ma|ritum, quive maritorum numero erit, || 

35 caelibi liberos non habenti qui marijtorum numero non erit; ha- 
bentem libejros non habenti; plures liberos haben|tem pauriores 
habenti praeferto priorem |que nuntiato ita, ut bini liberi post 

40 no||men inpositum aut singuli puberes amisjsi v/'rive potentes amissae 
pro singulis | sospitibus numerentur. Si duo pluresve to|tidem suf- 
fragia habebunt et eiiusdem | condicionis erunt, nomina eorum in || 

45 sortem coicito, et uti quiiusque (sic) nomen sorjti ductum erit, ita 
eum priorem alis renunti|ato. 

R. De sortitione curiarum et is, qui cu|riarum numero 
pares erunt, | 

50 LVI I. Qui comitia h. 1. habebit, is relatis omnium || curiarum 
tabulis nomina curiarum in sor| tern coicito, singularumque curiarum 
no|mina sorte ducito, et ut cuiiusque curiae | nomen sorte exierit, 
quos ea curia fecerit, | pronuntiari iubeto; et uti quisque prior || 

55 maiorem partem numeri curiarum con| fecerit, eum, cum h. 1. iura- 
verit caveritjque de pecunia communi, factum crea|tumque renun- 
tiato, donee tot magistral tus sint quod h. 1. creari oportebit. Si 

60 toti||dem curias duo pluresve habebunt, | uti supra conprehensum 
est de is qui | suffragiorum numero pares essent, ita | de is qui totidem 

65 curias habebunt fajcito, eademque ratione priorem quem||que 
creatum esse renuntiato. | 

C 376 ] 


R. Ne quid fiat, quo minus comitia ha|beantur. | 

LVIII. Ne quis intercedito neve quit aliut fa|cito, quo minus 
in eo muncipio (sic) h. 1. || comitia habeantur perficiantur. | Qui 7 
aliter adversus ea fecerit sciens | d(olo) m(alo), is in res singulas Col.n 
HS x mujnicipibus municepii (sic) Flavi Malacitani | d(are) d(amnas) 
e(sto), eiiusque pecuniae deque ea pecun. | municipi eius municipii, 
qui volet, cuique || per h. 1. licebit, actio petitio persecutio esto. j 5 

R. De iure iurando eorum, qui maiorem | partem riumeri 

curiarum expleverit. [ 

LIX. Qui ea comitia habebit, uti quisque eorum, | qui nviratum 
aedilitatem quaesturam||ve petet, maiiorem partem numeri curia) rum 10 
expleverit, priusquam eum factum | creatumque renuntiet, ius- 
iurandum adijgito in contionem (sic) palam per lovem et dijvom 
Augustum et divom Claudium et divom || Vespasianum Aug. et 15 
divom Titum Aug. | et Genium imp. Caesaris Domitiani Aug. | 
deosque Penates: se za qu#e ex h. 1. facere | oportebit facturum,neque 
adversus | h. 1. fecisse aut facturum esse scientem || d. m. 20 

R. Ut de pecunia communi munici|pum caveatur ab is, 
qui nviratum | quaesturamve petet. | 

LX. Qui in eo municipio nviratum quaesturam|ve petent quique 
propter ea, quod pauciorum || nomine quam oportet professio facta | 25 
esset, nominatim in earn condicionem | rediguntur, ut de his quoque 
suffragi|um ex h. 1. ferri oporteat: quisque eorum, | quo die comitia 
habebuntur, ante quam || suffragium feratur arbitratu eius qui ea | 30 
comitia habebit praedes in commune mu|nicipum dato pecuniam 
communem eo|rum, quam in honore suo tractaverit, | salvam is 
fore. Si d. e. r. is praedibus minus || cautum esse videbitur, praedia 35 
subsignato | arbitratu eiiusdem. Isque ab iis praedes praejdiaque 
sine d. m. accipito, quoad recte cau|tum sit, uti quod recte factum 
esse volet. | Per quern eorum, de quibus nvirorum quaes||torumve 4 
comitiis suffragium ferri opor|tebit, steterit, q. m. recte caveatur, 
eius qu/ co|mitia habebit rationem ne habeto. j 

R. De patrono cooptando, | 

LXI. Ne quis patronum publice municipibus muni||cipii Flavi 45 
Malacitani cooptato patrocinijumve cui deferto, nisi ex maioris 

[ 377 1 


partis de|curionum decreto, quod decretum factum | erit, cum duae 

50 partes non minus adfue|rint et iurati per tabellam sententiam tu||le- 

rint. Qui aliter adversus ea patronum | publice municipibus muni- 

cipii Flavi Ma|lacitani cooptaverit patrociniumve cui | detulerit, 

is HS x n. in /mblicum munici|pibus municipii Flavi Malacitani 

55 d.d e.; ens || qui adversus hJ. patronuscooptatuscui|wpatrocinium 

delatum erit, ne magis | ob earn rem patronus municipium (sic) 

muni|cipii Flavi Malacitanitanii (sic) esto. | 

60 R. Ne quis aedificia, quae restitutu||rus non erit, destruat. | 

LXII. Ne quis in oppido municipii Flavi Malacitajni quaeque 

ei oppido continentia aedificia | erunt, aedificium detegito destruito 

demojliundumve curato, nisi de decurionum con | scrip torumve sen- 

65 tentia cum maior pars || eorum adfuerit, quod restiturus (sic) intra 
proxi|mum annum non erit. Qui adversus ea fece|rit, is quanti 
e(a) r(es) e(rit), t(antam) p(ecuniam) municipibus municipi | Flavi 
Malacitani d. d. e., eiusque pecuniae | deque ea pecunia municipi 

70 eius municipii || qui volet, cuique per h. 1. lice&t, actio petitio | 

, iv persecutio esto. | 

R. De locationibus legibusque locatio|num proponendis 
et in tabulas mu|nicipi referendis. || 

5 LXIIL Qui nvir i(ure) d(icundo) p(raeerit), vectigalia ultroque 
tributa, | sive quid aliut communi nomine munici|pum eiius 
municipi locari oportebit, lojcato. Quasque locationes fecerit quas- 

10 que | leges dixerit, quanti quit locatum sit et qui prae||des accepti 
sint quaeque praedia subdita | subsignata obligatave sint quique 
prae|diorum cognitores accepti sint, in tabu|las communes muni- 
cipum eius (sic) municipi | referantur facito et proposita habeto 

15 per || omne reliquom tempus honoris sui, ita ut | d. p. r. 1. p., quo 
loco decuriones conscript! |ve proponenda esse censuerint. | 

R. De obligatione praedum praediorum | cognitorum- 
que. || 

20 LXIV. Quicumque in municipio Flavio Malacitano | in com- 
mune municipum eiius municipi | praedes facti sunt erunt, quaeque 
praedia | accepta sunt erunt, quique eorum prae|diorum cognitores 

25 facti sunt erunt: ii om||nes et quae cuiiusque eorum \\imfuerunt 

[ 378 ] 


erunt, cum | praees (sic) cognitorve factus est erit, quaeque pos|tea 
esse, cum ii obligati esse coepenmt c0e|perint, qui eorum soluti 
liberatique non sunt | non erunt aut non sine d. m. sunt erunt, ea||que 3 
omnia, qua* eorum soluta liberata|que non sunt non erunt aut non 
sine | d. m. sunt erunt, in commune municipum | eiius municipii 
item obligati obli|gataeque (sic) sunto, uti ii e#ve p. R. obligati 
obli||gatave essent, si aput eos, qui Romae aera|rio praessent, ii 35 
praedes i/'que cognito|res facti eaque praedia subdita subsignajta ob- 
ligatave essent. Eosque praedes eaque | praedia eosque cognitores, 
si quit eorum, in || quae cognitores facti erunt, ita non erit, | qui 40 
quaeve soluti liberati soluta libera|taque non sunt non erunt aut 
non sine | d. m. sunt erunt, nviris, qui ibi i. d. prae|runt, ambobus 
altenve eorum ex de||curionum conscriptorumque decreto, qu|od 45 
decretum cum eorum partes tertiae | non minus quam duae ades- 
sent factum | erit, vendere legemque his vendundis dicere | ius 
potestasque esto; dum ea^z legem is re||bus vendundis dicant, quam 5 
legem eos, | qui Romae aerario praeerunt, e lege prae|diatoria prae- 
dibus praedisque vendun|dis dicere oporteret, aut, si lege praedia| toria 
emptorem non inveniet, quam le||gem in vacuom vendendis dicere 55 
opor|teret; et dum ita legem dicant, uti pecu|niam infore municipi 
Flavi Malacitani | referatur luatur solvatur. Quaeque lex | ita 
dicta m't, iusta rataque esto. || 

R. Ut ius dicatur e lege dicta praedibus | et praedis 60 

vendundis. | 

LXV. Quos praedes quaeque praedia quosque cog|nitores nviri 
municipii Flavi Malaci|tani h. 1. vendiderint, de iis quicumque || 
i(ure) d(icundo) p(raeerit), ad quem de ea re in ius aditum erit, | 65 
ita ius dicito iudiciaque dato, ut ei, qui | eos praedes cognitores ea 
praedia mer|cati erunt, praedes socii heredesque eorum | i/que, ad 
quos ea res pertinebit, de is rebus || agere casque res petere persequi 70 
re | etc possit. 

R. De multa, quae dicta erit. | 

LXVI. Multas in eo municipio ab nviris praejfectove dictas, Col. \ 
item ab aedilibus quas aejdiles dixisse se aput uviros ambo alter|ve 
ex is professi erunt, nvir, qui i. d. p., in | tabulas communes muni- 
cipum eiius mu||nicipi referri iubeto. Si cui ea multa dicta | erit 5 

[ 379 ] 


aut nomine eiius alius postulabit, ut | de ea ad decuriones con- 
scriptosve refejratur, de ea decurionum conscriptorum|ve iudicium 
10 esto. Quaeque multae non || erunt iniustae a decurionibus con|- 
scriptisve iudicatae, eas multas nviri | in publicum municipum eiius 
munijcipii redigunto. | 

15 R. De pecunia communi municipum || deque rationibus 
eorundem. | 

LXVIL Ad quern pecunia communis municipum | eiius muni- 
cipi pervenerit, heresve ei|ius, isve ad quern ea res pertinebit, in 

20 diejbus xxx proximis, quibus ea pecunia || ad eum pervenerit, in 
publicum munijcipum eiius municipi earn referto. Qui|que rationes 
communes negotiumve qu|od commune municipum eius munici|pi 

25 gesserit tractaverit, is, heresve eiius || isve ad quern ea res pertinebit, 
in diebus xxx | proximis, quibus ea negotia easve ratio |nes gerere 
tractare desierit quibusque | decuriones conscriptique habebuntur, | 

30 nz/iones edito redditoque decurioni||us conscriptisve cuive de his 
accipi|endis cognoscendis ex decreto decuriojnum conscriptorumve, 
quod decretum | factum erit cum eorum partes non mi|nus quam 

35 duae tertiae adessent, nego||tium datum erit. Per quern steterit, q. | 
m. ita pecunia redigeretur referre|tur quove minus ita rationes 
reddejrentur, is, per quern steterit q. m. rationes | redderentur quove 

40 minus pecunia redige||retur referretar, heresque eius isque ad qujem 
ea res qua de agitur pertinebit, q(uanti) e(a) r(es) | erit, tantum et 
alterum tantum munici|pibus eiius municipi d. d. e., ei usque pe- 

45 cunijae deque ea pecunia municipum muni||cipii Flavi Malacitani 
<eius ea pecunia | municipum Flavi Malacitani) qui volet, cuique 
per h. 1. licebit, actio pejtitio persecutio esto. | 

R. De constituendis patronis causae, cum | rationes 
redden tur. || 

50 LXVIII. Cum ita rationes reddentur, nvir, qui decurio|nes 
conscriptosve habebit, ad decuriones | conscriptosve referto, quos 
placeat publijcam causam agere, iique decuriones con|scriptive per 

55 tabellam iurati d. e. r. decer||nunto, turn cum eorum partes non 
minus | quam duae tertiae aderunt, ita ut tres, qu|os plurimi per 
tabellam legerint, causam | publicam agant, iique qui ita lecti erunt 

[ 380 ] 


tern | pus a decurionibus conscript! jve, quo cau||sam cognoscant 60 
actionemque suam orjdinent, postulanto, eoque tempo re quod is | 
datum erit transacto earn causam uti quod | recte factum esse volet 
agunto. | 

R. De iudicio pecuniae communis. || 

LXIX. Quod m(unicipum) m(unicipii) Flavi Malacitani no- 65 
mine pejtetur ab eo, qui eius municipi municeps incolave erit, 
quodve cum eo agetur | quod pluris HS CID sit neque tanti sit, ut | 
de ea re proconsulem ius dicer e iudiciaque dare ex hac lege oporteat : 
de ea re nvir praefectusve, qui iure dicundo praeerit eius municipii, 
ad quern de ea re in Ius aditum erit, ius dicito iudiciaque dato. . . . 

LXIV. 1. 56. pecuniam infore municipi, table t\ perhaps pecunia in publi- 

cum municipum. 
LXVII, 1. 45. eius ea Malacitani, dittography. 

See no. 64 and commentary. 



(ca. 93 p. Chr.) 

Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. 55 (1924), 5^.; Journ. Rom. Studies^ 
14 (1924), 1 80. 

L. Antistius Rusticus leg(atus) | imp(eratoris) Caesar(i)s Domi- 
tiani | Aug(usti) Germ(anici) pro pr(aetore), dic(it): | Cum nvir(i) 
et decurion(es) || splendidissim(ae) col(oniae) Ant(iochensis) | 5 
scripserint mihi propter | hiemis asperitatem an|nonam frumenti 
ex|arsisse petierintque ut || pleps copiam emendi haberet, | b. /. 10 
omnes, qui Ant(iochensis) col(oniae) aut | coloni aut incolae 
sunt, | profiteantur apud nviros col(oniae) | Antiochensis intra 
tri||censimum diem quam | hoc edictum meum pro|positum fuerit 15 
quantum | quisque et quo loco fru|menti habeat et quan||tum in 20 
semen aut in | cibaria annua familiae | suae deducat, et reliqui | 
omnis frumenti copiam | emptoribus col(oniae) Antiochens(is) || 
faciat. Vendendi au(t)em | tempus cons(t)ituo in k(alendas) 25 
Aug(ustas) | primas. Quod si quis non | paruerit, sciat me, quid|quid 
contra edictum me||um retentum fuerit, | in commissum vindica-| 30 
turum, delatoribus prae|mi nomine octava por|tione constituta. 

[ 381 ] 


35 Cum || autem adfirmatur mihi ante | hanc hibernae asperitatis 
perjseverantiam octonis et | novenis assibus modium fru|menti in 

40 colonia fuisse || et iniquissimum sit famem | civium suorum prae- 
daecui|quam esse, excedere sing(ulos) | (denarios) sing(ulos) modios 
pretium | frumenti veto. 

1. ii. b(ono) te(mpori), Robinson\ B (in margin), et, Ramsay. 

This inscription was discovered at Pisidian Antioch. The second 
column, containing the edict of Antistius Rusticus, is reproduced 
above. Prior to publication Professor D. M. Robinson kindly 
furnished us with the text and notes on the document. He 
believes that the famine referred to in the edict may be associated 
with that referred to in Revelation vi. 6, cf. Reinach, Rev. Arch. 

39 (i90> 350 /. 

The local magistrates of Antioch had been unable to meet the 
situation caused by the famine and consequent hoarding of grain by 
farmers and speculators. They appealed to the governor for legisla- 
tion to compel the merchants and producers to sell. The edict is an 
early example of imperial interference in the regulation of prices 
in provincial towns. Although the famine must have been wide- 
spread, it may be noted that the edict does not apply to the whole 
province, but deals only with conditions in the city which presented 
the petition. Similarly in the reign of Trajan, Pliny and the emperor 
dealt with each city in Bithynia individually. The confession of 
impotence on the part of the magistrates of Antioch may have been 
a factor in the development of the policy of appointing curatores 
rei publicae to deal with problems of municipal government a few 
years later. For regulations in regard to control of local markets, 
cf. nos. 90 and 91. 

Antioch was probably founded as a Roman colony prior to 27 B.C. 
although Ramsay favors a later date (cf. R.E. 4, 531 /.; Ramsay, 
yourn. Rom. Studies^ 6 (1916), 83^). In the proclamation of the 
governor the chief magistrates and members of the local senate are 
styled by titles current in the West rather than by the Greek equiva- 
lents. The use of the Latin language in the eastern provinces for 
the edict of governors is rare (cf. no. 22). The Roman calendar 
and the Roman system of weights and coinage were also used. It 
may be noted that a distinction is made between coloni, who were 

[ 382 j 


probably descendants of the veterans settled there by Augustus, and 
the tncolae, who probably represent the original members of Antioch. 
In the time of Domitian the two classes had not yet been placed on 
an equal footing politically, <:/. Journ. Rom. Studies, 8 (1918), 107 ff. 


(81-96 p. Chr.) 

OIL. 11, 1945; Dessau, 1982. 

Imp. Domitiano | Caesari | Aug. Germanico | L. Munius Quir. || 
Novatus et | L. Munius Quir. | Aurelianus | . f. c. R. per honorem \ 5 
ii vir. consecuti || d. s. p. d.d. 10 

Found at Iluro in Baetica. On the grant of Roman citizenship 
on election to a local magistracy (civitatem Romanam per honorem 
duoviratus), cf. pp. 191 ff. 


(96-97 p. Chr.) 

B.C.H. 44 (1920), 73; An. ep. 1922, no. 30. 

'O 8?7/iO9 ereifirjaev rais Bevrepcus j rivals Wlapicov Y^OKK,r\iov 
Nepouai/ 1 TOV avro/cpdropa VTTCLTOV re a7ro8eSt|7/4z/oi>, evepyerijv 
fcal Trdrpwva fcal <Tw\\rfjpa yeyovora TT)<? 7ro\O)9, d7rofca0a-ra-\ 5 
Kora 8e rj/jblv teal rrjv irdrpiov e\ev0pi\av re KOI 7ro\t,Teiav, 
eVatVa)^, xpvawi \ <TT<f)dvQ)t, dpia-reia)L y el/covi ^a\fcfjc e</>t7r| Treat, 
TrpoeSpiat, eV rot? dyaxriv, aperf)? \\ eveica KOI evvoias KOI evep- 10 
19 eauroi/. 

From Lagina in Caria. Lagina (Stratonicaea) was given freedom 
and autonomy by a decree of the Roman senate in 81 B.C. (no. 17). 
The city still enjoyed these privileges in the time of Pliny the Elder 
(N.H. 5. 1 09), and probably lost them as a result of the fiscal reforms 
of Vespasian. From this document we learn that Nerva restored 
the former privileges. It may be doubted whether Vespasian made 
any change in the municipal constitution when he cancelled the 
immunity from tribute, and the restoration of the ancestral TroXcreia 
ascribed to Nerva probably means nothing more than a return to 
the former status of Stratonicaea in the empire. 

[ 383 ] 



(43-100 p. Chr.) 

An. &p. 191 g, no. I o ; Annales de Pacadtmie Roumaine^ 38, no. 1 5 ; 
Wilhelm, An%eiger der Akad. der Wissen. in Wien^ 59 (1922), 
j* ff.\ Suppl. Ep. Gr. 1,329. 

'QpoOevia Kafiepiov Magifjiov. \ 
Fines Histrianorum hos esse constitui ........... P^jucem 

lacum Halmyridem a dominio .............. | Argamensium inde 

5 iugo summo .............. ad r||onfluentes rivorum Picusculi et 

Gabrani inde ab im\o Gabrano ad capud eiusdem inde. . . .iuxta 

rivum | Sanpaeum inde ad rivum Turgiculum .......... | a rivo 

Calabaeo milia passuum circit^r D. vi ...... | 

10 >a09ayez>09 crrpiav)v ap^ovauv, ov)i,ijiuLc0i, yai- 
pew. To 7Tpl TLevKtjv vpslv Sl/cat,o[v 5?r(9] dtcepatov 
<rrai 7ri/j,\s 'KpovvrLt&i <!>Xa[yL6/^at] ran 7rdp%a 
yap avr&i eireareCka. AaX.rjO'a) $ /cal Klp,t,\iav)t, 

15 JJLOV fcal e^9 TO 7ra^re\e9 crucrr^cra) u/ta9. "AXA/ty eTricrroXr} \\ rov 
avrov ^afteivov. 4>Xa. SaySe^o9 7r[pcrySefT^9] 'lo-Tpt^avwv 
apftovaiv, @ov\rji, Srjfjwi, ^aipcv t Kal a Kal [r]o r^9 Kara rov \ 
"\arpov 0^^7/9 reXo9 peXP^ OaXdacr^ Sitffcei /cal /c ro\aovrov 
Sia<rrtf/jLaros dcfrecrrrj/cev r) ?roX69 CLTTO r&v rov \ Trorapov orro- 

zo /iidrcov tifjicos ejrel Kal ol Trpecrfiet,? vfi&v \\ 8te/3e/3atoui/ro 
'AaiariKos o 7rap^o9 eXe^ye cr^eSo^ | eKeLvrjv p^ovrjv elvai 
7roX6ft)9 Trpocro&ov ryv eK rov \ rapei^vo^vov fydvos, 
Selv vfjielv Kara rrjv \_vjjierQ\pav crwr]Qiav peveiv rrjv avrr)v 
a&eiav rov re a\itv[eiv\ \ ev rwt YlevKrj? orro/j,ari Kal rov Trapa- 

25 <f>piv rrjv SaSa \\ 6/9 rrjv evb$ eKacrrov ^pelav Sfya reXoi/9' 
Trepl | yap r&v rr)$ v\rjs xpei&v dvafjL<f)t,(r/3rjrr]ra %ere opt,a \ 
Kal rrjv e eKeivcov ^pricnv iraaav r>i reXXet \_dv]v7rev6vvov. \ 

'ETT^CTTOX^ YlofiTrcovlov Tleiov. \ 
TIofjLTrtovios ITe?09 'lo-rpiavwv ap^ovGiv, [ftovXrjt,, Srj/jLtoi %a]i- 

30 peiv. || Kal K rcov yeypafjbfievcDv v/jLtv VTTO 4>X. ^afteivov [/cal 
AifjiL\i,]\avov dvSpwv eTTiarj/yiordrtov [Kal eJyLcol rC/jLca)[rdrcov rjv 
r) acrQkvia rrjs 7roXefc)9 v/j,co[v rrpovolas 

[ 384 ] 


rrpo ovv] \ irdvrcov <f>povriovro<; ToO deiordrov [Kat- 
0)9 d\r)0)$ <TG)Tf]]\po$ TJ/JLVV, iva /j,rj JJLOVOV 

d\[\a Kal avfyOfji] \\ ra r&v TTO\COV Si/caia, eTre/cpeiva rrjv T[O>]I/. 35 
K\ara crrbp,~\a Ilefv^]? d\i\vofjLevcov i%0vcov TrpoaoSov vperepav 
elvai, \&i\ Sitcalcoi rav\ra ra re\rj ol irpoyovoi, V/JL&V KOI T 

<rro\r) tl\avri[ov Ai\i~\avov. \ n\avTio$ A.i\t,avb$ *\ 

To tyr)<$Lap,a vpwv aTreSocrai/ /JLOI ol 7rpe<r- 40 

rov ^rj\(f>io-fjiaro^ TrapaTre^Ofivai rrjv 


teal Si* avrov JJLOVOV rov ^aftelvov [a ]| 07161/0)9 av eTroLrjcra. 
'HftouTe 8e Kal ra rfjs HevKrjs u/Lte[^] d6pav<i\\ra rypelv SiKaia. 45 
*Eya) B rocrovrov 7r%[o)] rov OpavaaLn r&v K \ ^pbvov 0u\acr- 
<ro/jLva)v v/jieiv $iKaio)v, 0^9 Kal Trapevpelv av 7786(0)9 $i <*>v evecrrat, 
KO<r/jLlv dp^eav Trb\iv Kal ' EAATjz/i'Sa Kal 6/9 rov 2[6]/3 

avrovs ovo~av 

T; TouXXtou Fe/uz/oi;. || 

Te/jiivos 7Tp(r/3evrr)S Kal dvncrrpdrrjryos l\yS. KXa(u)- 50 
ov Kai<rapo9 2e/S. TepfjuaviKOV 'IcrrpLavwv dp^ovaw, /3ov\rjt, y 
. Ol TrpeV/9669 v/iw^ 
Ta.[. . . 

TO ^rj(f>icr^a vfjiwv eTreSoaav Kal 6/9 TOI/ 2[e/3a]0-||roi/ TJ/JL&V 55 
7Ti?>i};dfjLvoi cvvoiav Grvvijo-drjaav e[Trl rfji] rj/jierepai v[yii]\at, 
Kal nrapovalai a-jrovBeo-rdr^v f Troir)o~dp,evot, rrjv [yrepl wv everei- 
avrols 6fit\iav. 'E*7ri<yvov<; ovv (r)rjv Kal 7r/oo9 


dyadov] \ jvea-0ac Trapairios. Tlepl 8e HevKrjs Kal r&v crro/j,[d' 
ra)v 8tSa%]^6||t9 VTTO r*v Trpecrftetov vp&v eSiKaicoara rrjpiadai 60 
vpelv r[a r&v 7rpo]\<yova)v vfiS)V opia. 

Exempluw epistulae \ Mari Laberi Maximi, leg. Aug. pr. pr. | 
Imp. Caesari Traiano Aug. Germanic /// lulio /T0fl|tino in cos. 
vin ka. Novembres. Descriptum \\ et recognitum factum ex comm. 65 
M#r/' Laberi \ Maximi leg. Aug. pr. pr. Permitt ..... | Fabio 
Pompeiano. Quae Jam era . scri ........ | Charagonio Phicora- 

AMA [ 385 ] 25 


laestro conductore publici por \ tori ripae Thraciae postulante \\tvectigal 
o //rf/||myridis et Peuci daretur secund^m veterem legem\ \ ...... bit. 

lus exigendi portor/ ........ | ...... arum dimensium usque 

ad .......... | 

This document contains the letters of several governors of Moesia 
to the officials of the town of Histria. Laberius Maximus was 
governor in 100, Tullus Geminus in 54, Plautus Aelianus in 
5253, Pomponius Pius in 51, Aemilianus in 50, and Flavius 
Sabinus in 4349. From the frequency of the letters, we may 
infer that the privileges of the city in regard to their monopoly 
of salt fish, their forest rights, and even the extent of their terri- 
torium y were being constantly called in question, probably by the 
agents of the imperial fiscus. From this document we also learn 
that the chief source of revenue of the city came from its fishing 
privileges, but there is no evidence to prove that these were a 
municipal monopoly, leased out to its residents. 


(saec, i p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 948. 

....... [elvai TTJV Sdveierw \ rov xptf/Aaros] aTrafVro]?, [ou- 

Sei/09 %oi/r]|o9 e^ovcriav rau> Sa^[et<rrcuz/] ...... | 

5 TroiijcracrOai ov$\fj,lav rov\ dp<y\\[y]piov /cal r&v 

)v irplv fj | r]o 
avSpa? O/CTOD ev 

ciz/ Xprj/jidTwv pera rr)V aip[ecri,v rov \ d 
10 TU>V 2ey8ac7Toui/ dycovcov. "EfTretra S]e || rrjv /JLeraTrapaSocriv <yei- 




our[a)z/] | /ca ro) 
r[rjv \ r]oO 7rp(*)[rov 


KO[V Kai(ra]po$ rj/melpa? \ ye]ve0Xi[o]v 8et,[vd]pia 8% /^a[/, \av 
20 i/36\i,fjios arjTcu pr)v } /cal 

C 386 ] 


This inscription from Chios is important for the regulation of 
endowment funds given to the city. Eight men are chosen to ad- 
minister the trust, which is to accumulate for four years. Then 
the accumulated interest is to be paid to the proper officials. In the 
case of similar endowments, e.g. that of Salutaris at Ephesus (no. 7 i), 
the consent of the provincial governor was sometimes secured. 
Such a provision may have been found in the portion of the decree 
which has disappeared. 

(saec. fere I vel II p. Chr.) 

LB.M. 1021; Ditt. 6>//. 3 1262; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1427. 

.... r?/[^e]6 ......... Sia ...... | [r]ou9 7roXXou9 /ca)[Xuo]u<rt 

[tcoi\v]o)Viv TJ/9 Tropdfieias, 7rp[o?] | Se TQVTOLS avrl 8vo ofio- 
X[a5y] || Svo a<T<rdpia TreTroirf/caai, r[bv] | vav\ov, C avro rovro 5 
/ecu cr[ui']|e(rT?7/coTe9 /cal KO)\VOVT<> \ rov ftovXofjLevov iropBfjbev- 
[e^i/, | OJTTCO? 7rdv[ay]/c<; avrols ol [Se\\6]fjivoL TT)? 7rop[0^]eia^ 10 
^/)co[2/|r]af o/jLoicos 8e /c[al] 7Tpl ra? a[X|\]a-9 TropOfieia^ tca- 
fcovpyovcr[i /c|a]ra ravrd' eSo^e TTJL /3ov\fjt, K[CU, | rcujt 

From Smyrna. The document is apparently a decree of the city 
regulating the ferry traffic across the Hermus. Not enough of the 
inscription is preserved to enable us to determine whether the city 
was concerned in the regulation of the traffic because of a possible 
loss of revenue (cf. no. 128 where the ferry was a civic monopoly), 
or from a desire to keep the peace. 



(104 p. Chr.) 

LB.M. 481 (pt. iv, p. 246, 11. 336^.); Laum, Stiftungen^ 74. 

, 6 Xa/iTrpojrarov, 'E(/)(7[^]a>z/ apy^ovai, | 
QveifSiov ^a\ovrdpiov oi>r]a TO?? re 
apwrov fcal Trpo\Tpov ev 7roX[Xo]<? 

af||[roi) <^>tXoT6tyLtta9 TroXXa re teal ou]^ ft>9 TV%ev 7r[ape]- 340 

tSa>9, wcrTrep] tfv a%iov y ev T049 

387 ] *s-* 


vvv e, e7re rrjv 

irpoijipjrjrat, \ [peyicrrois re /cal d%io\o/af\rdroi<; Scopofo #o<r]- 
fiijcrai, fJL\[ya\07rpTrto<; 66*9 ripr)v Ttfc] re eTrt^av^ardrrj]^ teal 
J45 /*676V||[T779 6ea$ 'ApTe/uSo9 /eat roO] o?/co[i; rwv 

7TO\a>9, T069 $6 7TO\6/Tat9 66*9 

/caOcepo)K Srjv. Si<r/j,vpia, vofjul^co teal i5^ta9,j <f> 
\7reTrolr] KGV vpelv /cal vvv 7ravj\\rac dyadoi]?, XP^ vai rf*' T 
[^^Xore^at avrov dvraTroSovvat, KOI rfji evp,ev\eiai, a 7rpo9 || 
35 [reifxrjv avrov etyr)(picraT. ^vvrfSofiat, 8' v/j,iv 69 TO 7rai]v<rai, 
re rov | [avbpa /cal a^i&aai avrbv 8t,/caia$ Trap* r)pelv\ fjiaprv- 
pia$ | [7r/oo9 TO teal 7T\Lovs yevecrOat, Tot>9 Kara ra] Svvara 
7rpo\[0vjJLOv/jivov$ 66? Ta o/jLOia. Ta Se UTT' avrov Ka6ie\povfieva 
XP f n\\.l JLaTa Ka ^ Ta d7Ti/covi(raara rfjs Oeov teal Ta9J eiicbvas rj 
355 T<T||[ ......... | ..... ]% e [ ..... ] a ^[ ...... | ] 

[ ...... J^P^^t ...... | ] ovbeva ft[ov\ofj,at vv]vl 

ovbevl ovre Trapevpzaei oi)|[5]^/xm fier[ 
360 rt TcSz^ VTT' ai/ToO S6aT6Ta7/L6||^]a)^* 66 

roov \ i5]^>' i5yu/w[z/ &t,a TO]UTOU r[ov 

i n roio\yrov 

877. /9 fi(vpiot,$) Acal 66*9 TOI; /6p|]a>TaToz/ <f)i<r/cov 
365 8?;. [S60yti;pto69 f rrevraKicr^ec\Lo^ /cal \\ ov]Sev \arrov 
atcovpov \atrav TO Trapa rrjv] KaOi^pwa-Lv. ^f^|?7]8o(6)/i[a] 
avrwi 669 TO Traa-w [vvv (fravepav yeve](r0ai r\r)v \ TJ6 7r/>09 
rrjv 7T/)09 TOU9 Se]/3a<TTo[t'9 | K\al rrjv 
avrov ev ru>i\ Oedrpwi. \ "Ep/ofcoa"^]. 

From Ephesus. Of the great inscription which records the en- 
dowment founded by Vibius Salutaris for the benefit of his fellow- 
citizens at Ephesus, we have given only the letter of the governor 
ratifying the gift and naming the penalty imposed on anyone who 
should seek to void or disregard the provisions of the foundation. 
We rarely find a record of such ratifications by imperial officials 
(cf. Laum, op. at. nos. 19^ 162, 206), and the act was probably 
unnecessary, but the submission of the terms of the gift to the 
emperor or to the governor was inspired by motives of vanity and 
by a desire to bring the individual or the city to the notice of the 
central government. This procedure gave an excellent opening for 

[ 388 ] 


imperial interference in municipal matters, and undoubtedly led 
to the development of paternalistic tendencies. In general, endow- 
ments which provided for the distribution of money to citizens 
were deprecated (cf. no. 101; Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 116, 117). 
Since Salutaris provided that 450 denarii should be distributed 
annually to the senators at the rate of a denarius apiece, we learn 
that the Ephesian senate normally had 450 members at this period 
(cf. the commentary of the editors of the l.E.M. ad loc.). Laum 
points out that fully half of the endowment assigned to provide a 
dole to the six tribes at Ephesus had disappeared or had been diverted 
to other uses within a few years after the foundation (op. cit. i, 


(in p. Chr.) 
An. ep. 1904, no. 59. 

Imp. Caesar \ divi Nervae f. \ Nerva TVrfianus | Aug. Ger- 
manicus || Dacicus pont. maximus | trib. pot. xv Imp. vi cos. v \ 5 
p. p. redacta in form&m \ provincia Arabia | Viam AWam a finibus || 
Syriae usque ad | Mare Rubrum aperuit | et stravitper C. | Claudium 10 
Seven/m | leg. pro pr. || CLXVI. 15 

This inscription and no. 103 record the completion of public 
works under the order of the emperor for the benefit of provincial 
communities. For a similar inscription of an earlier date, cf. no. 31. 



(i 12-117 p. Chr.) 

OIL. in, S. 7086; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 336; Alterthumer von 
Pergamon, viri, 2, 269. 

(Primi versus omissi sunt} 

['E-Trl crrparrjyov fcal. \ . .]o[v]K\avSiOV^i\a- 15 

vov dp^iepea)^ \ cos ias s. c. factum de postulatione 

Pergamenorum( ?) | placer e utcertamen illud, quod in honorem templi 
lovis amicalis et | Imp. Caes. divi Nervae f. Nervae Traiani Au- 
gusti Germanic! Dacici || pontificis maximi est constitutum elcr\acr- 20 
rttcbv in civitate | Pergamenorum, eiusdem condicioms sit, cuius 

[ 389 ] 


est quod in honorem Romae | et Divi Aug. ibi agitur y ifa ut ea 
impendia, quae propter id certamen | fieri oportebit> cedant in onus 
luli Quadrati clarissimi viri. | ........ eorumque ad quos ea res 

25 pertinebit. || [Ke<aXaoi> etc T]O>I> Katcrapo? eWoAaii/. | Cum 
secundum meant ronstitutionem certamen in civitate | Pergamenorum 
ab lulio Quadrato amico clarissimo viro quinquennale, | quod dicitur 
i<T\a<TTi,/c6v, ronstitutum sit idq. amplissimus ordo | eiusdem iuris 

30 esse decreverit, cuius est quod in eadem civitate || in honorem Romae 
et divi .//ug. institutum est, huius quoq. ise(l)as|//V/ idem quod in 
altero certamine custoditur dare oportebit | victoribus praemium. \ 
[Avro/cpdrcop KaZcrap @eoO Nepova vl]bs Ne/oova? 

35 &rujt,ap'%t/c'fjs \\ [e^ovaia^ TO i. t avro/cpdra)p TO.., VTTOJTOS TO 
r', irarrjp TrarpiSos, \ [Tlepya/jLrjv&v rrji /3ov\fji teal rSi\i Brjficoi 
*)(aipeiv. | \^T&\6ov<rr)<; V/JL&V 7rp6a-/3eta9, avroSefaJ/ze^o? avrrjs TO 
T d^ico/na | [/cal TO, avyfypd/jL/jiaTay irepl TrdvTWv a ev 

40 7riTp7rco ovv v\\[fMv ............. ] 

[ .................. ] TWV Oewpi&v wpicr/jLevov \ ........... 

f r^-i \ v \ r 

..... OpO) [oj Kai Ta? W7TO ............. 

From Pergamum. This inscription deals with the relations of a 
senatorial province to the emperor and senate. When Julius Quad- 
ratus wished to establish games in honor of Trajan in Pergamum, 
the emperor was apparently consulted first. He referred the matter 
to the senate, and when they approved the request, the emperor 
issued the edict instead of the senate (secundum meam constitutionem). 
He also confirmed the senate's action in making the games equal 
in rank to those in honor of Augustus. The letter of Trajan in 
Greek is too fragmentary to permit an accurate interpretation, but 
it apparently deals with some remission of the market-tax during 
the games. If so, the tax was probably an imperial one levied in a 
senatorial province. For Julius Quadratus, cf. Waddington, Pastes 
des provinces asiatiques, 114. 

[ 390 ] 




(116-117 p. Chr.) 

Bruns, 114; Girard, p. 870; Riccobono, p. 352. 

Pro Wute | Aug(usti) n(ostri) \mp(eratori$) Caes(aris) Traiani Col.i 
princ(ipis) \ totiusque domus divine | 0ptimi Germanici Parthici. 
Data a Licinio || Maximo et Feliciore Aug(usti) lib(erto) procc(ura- 5 
toribus) ad exempluw | legis Manciane. Qui eorum mtra fundo 
villae Mag|ne Variani id est Mappalia Siga habttabunt^ eis eos agros 
qui su|cesiva sunt excolere permittitur lege Manciana | . . .ita 
ut eas qui excoluerit usum proprium habe||at. Ex fructibus qui eo 10 
loco nati erunt, dominis au/ | conductoribus vilicisve eius f(undi) 
partes e lege Ma|nciana prestare debebunt hac condicione: coloni | 
fructus cuiusque culture quos ad area#z deportare | et terere debe- 
bunt, summas de/>rant arbitratu || mo conductoribus vilicis^ eius 15 
f(undi) et si conducto|res vilic/ve eius f(undi) in assern parto 
r01(on)icas datur|as renuntiaverint tabellisque obsignatis . . . f s ca- 
vea|nt eius fructus partes, qutfj prestare debent, | conductores vili- 
c/ve eius f(undf) colom colonic||as partes prestare debeant. Qui in 20 
f(undo) villae Mag|nae sive Mappalia Siga villas habent habebunt | 
dominicas dominis eius f(undi) aut conductoribus vilicisve | eorum 
in assem partes fructuwm et vinear/vm ex | consuetudine Manciane 
cu/usque gene||ris habet prestare debebunt; tritici ex a|ream partem 25 
tertiam, hordei ex aream | partem tertiam, fabe ex aream partem 
qu|#rtam, vinu de laco partem tertiam, ol\ei 0acti partem tertiam, 
mellis in alve||/V mellaris sextarios singulos. Qui supra | quinque Q O \ n 
alveos | habebit in ternpore quo Wwjdemia mellaria fu/V fuerit, \ 
dominis aut conduct0r/7;w.f W//||cisve eius f(undi) qui in assem par- 5 
tern. . . | d(are) d(ebebit). Si quis alveos, examina, apes, vasa \ 
mellaria ex f(undo) villae Magne sive M|appalie Sige in octonarium 
agru/w | transtulerit, quo fraus aut dominis au/ || conductoribus vili- 10 
cisve eis quam fiat, al^|e/, exam/V/a, apes, vasa mellaria, rnel qui 
in eof(undo) \ erunt conductor//;?* v/7icorumve in assem eius \ f(undi) 
erunt. Ficus aride arborm;<? aliaeq\iz extra pom/7|rio erunt, qua 
pomariuw mtra villam ipsam || sit, ut non amplius \\ista vindemia 15 
yfat, co!0tf|us arbitrio suo coactorum fructuum conducto\ri vilicisve 

[ 391 ] 


eius f(undi) fartem tantam d(are) d(ebebit}. Ficeta vete|ra et oliveta, 
que ante hanc legem sata sunt, ex consuet#|din* fructum conductor! 

20 vilicisve eius prestar* || debeat Si quod ficetum postea factum erit, 
eius ficeti \ fruc/um per continuas ficationes quinque | arbitrio suo 
ei qui serverit percipere permittitur, | post quintam ficationem eadem 
leg* qua s(upra) s(criptum) est | conductoribus vilicisve eius f(undi) 

25 p(restare) d(ebebit). Vineas serere || colere loco veterum permittitur 
ea condicione ut \ ex ea satione proxumis vindemu quinque fructuw | 
earum vinearum is qui ita secuerit suo arbitrio per|cip/at itemque 
post quinta(m) vindemia(m) quam ita sata | erit, fructus partes 

3 tertias e lege Manciana conduc||toribus | vilicisve eius in assem dare 

lfin debe|i/V. Olivetum serere colere in | eo loo? qua quis incultum 

5 excolujerit permittitur ea condicione u||t ex ea satione eius fructus 

oliveti qjuid ita satum est per olivationes pro|ximas decem arbitrio 

suo percipe\re debeat, item post olivationes (decem) ole/ | coacti 

10 partem tertiam <ronducto||ribus vilicisve eius f(undi) d(are) d(ebebit). 
Qui inserue|rit oleastra post olivationes quinque par | tern tertiam 
d(are) d(ebebit) ........ in f(undo) [ ville Magne Variant sive 

15 Mappaliae | Sige sunt eruntve extra eos agros qui || vicias habent, 
eorum a^rorum fructjws conductoribus vilicisve *ius d(are) d(ebe- 
bunt); custodes e|xigere debebut. Pro pecoraque /ntra f(undum) 
ville M|agne sive Mappalie Sig* pascentur, in pectora sin|gula aera 

20 quattus conductoribus vilicisve do||minorum eius f(undi) prestari 
debebutft. Si quis ex f(undo) ville | Magne sive Mappalie Sige 
fructus stantem pen|dentem, maturum inmaturum caer/V^rit, ex- 
cider [it, exportaverit deportaverit conbuserit desequer|it sequentis 
IV i/enii detrimentum conductoribus vilicisve eius f(undi) | coloni erit 
ei cui de. . . . | tantum prestare d(ebebit). Si qui in f(undo) ville 

Afag\ne siv(e) Mappalie Sige arbores frugiferas j^|verunt severint Us 
5 eius superficiei usum \\ qui e legitimo ....... | testamen .......... 

sup\er fides . . .hoc tempus lege Manciana \ ritu. . . fiducieve data 
sunt dabuntur . . .id\ . .veius fiduciae lege Manciana servabitur. . . 

10 Qui || superficiem ex inculto excoluit excoluenV ibique \ . . .aedi- 
ficium deposuit posuerit /Vve qui coluit colere \ desierit perdesierit eo 
tempore, quo ita ea superfiaW | coli desit desierit, ea quo fuit fuerit 
ius colendi dumtaxajd bienn/o proximo ex qua die colere desierit 

15 servatur || servabitur; post biennium conductores vilinve eorum. . . \ 

[ 392 ] 


Ea superficies que proxumo anno rulta fuit et coli desi\erit con- 
ductor vilicusve eius f(undi) ei cuius ea superficies esse dicitjur 

denuntiet superficiem cultam | denuntiationem denuntiatur 

. . .testa. . . . || o itemque in sequentem annum permtat ea sine 20 
quer^j/a eius f(undi) post biennium conductor vilicusve co/ere de-\ 
beto. Ne quis conductor vilicusw eorum inquilinum eius \ f(undi). 
Coloni qui intra f(undum) ville Magne she Mappalia Sige habit- 1 
abunt dominis aut conductoribus viliclsve in assem <p||odannis in 2 5 
hominibus singulis in arationzs ope|ras n(umero) n et in messem 
op generis | singulas operas binas \>restare debebunt. Co- 
loni | inquilini eius f(undi) intra. . .anni n|omina sua conductor/'/^ 

vi/icisve. . . .m custo||dias singulas qu nent | ratam 3 

seorsuw . . . um. | Stipendiarion/w qui in /(undo) ville Magne sive 
Afappa| lie Sige habitabww/. . . . uasc|onductoribus vilicisve. . . cust-|| 
odias f(undi) servis dominie ... nit est | (quae sequuntur quinque lineae 35 
legi non possunt.} Hec lex scripta a Luro Victore Odilonis magistro, 
et Flavio Gem|inio defensore; Felice Annobalis Birzilis. 

I, 11. 1617. daturas; daturos se, Rostowzew. 

I, 1. 17. sine fraude sua; f s, tablet. 

II, 1. 10. eis quam; usquam or eis qu(i) (in) a(sse)m, Gradenwitz. 

II, 1. 13. arboresve aliae que, Schulten; arborum earum quaeque, Ros- 

towzew, taking ficus aride as a genitive. 

III, 1. 12. in fundo, tablet; Qui agri herbosi in fundo, Rostowzew. 
Ill, 1. 23. desequerit desecuerit, Toutain. 

III, 1. 24. fundi, tablet; perhaps fundi prestare debebit, Schulten. 

IV, 1. i. coloni, tablet; Si culpa colon!, Schulten. 

IV, 1. i. ei cui de. . . ; ei cui debet partes colonicas alterum, H. Kriiger. 

IV, 11. 5-6. Gradenwitz remarks that the sense requires qui e legitimo iure 
ad hereditatem eius venicnt vel testamento instituti heredes erunt. 

IV, 1. 8. ritu. . .; pignori(s) t(itulo), Gradenwitz and Dessau; Schulten 
gives sense of passage: Si quae aedificia superficiesve post hoc tempus 
e lege Manciana pignori obligata fiducieve data sunt dabuntur eorum 
in biennium colono hcredi eius fiducia e lege Manciana servabitur. 

IV, 11. 16-22. Schulten restores the sense as follows: Ea superficies que 
proximo anno culta fuit et coli desierit conductor vilicusve eius fundi 
ei cuius ea superficies esse dicitur denuntiet superficiem cultam colen- 
dam esse; si post hanc denuntiationem denuntiatas cessare pergat 
itemque insequentem annum persistat, ea superficies sine querela eius 
post triennium conductor vilicusve eius fundi colere debeto. 

IV, 1. 19. after denuntiatur Schulten finds on stone essegabit or essechatis. 

IV, 1. 21. Schulten thinks eius fundi belongs after conductor vilicusve. 

[ 393 ] 


IV, 1. 23. after fundi Schulten conjectures that plus quam . . . prestare 

cogat has fallen out. 
IV, 1. 26. after messem Schulten proposes operas in sarritiones 

IV, 1. 29. after vilicisve the words eius fundi edere et operas have been 

IV, 1. 30. after singulas the words quas agris prestare debent have been 

IV, 1. 33. after vilicisve the words eius fundi prestare debeant have been 

suggested. The words Hec lex, etc.> stand at the bottom of the first 


An altar found in 1896 at Henchir Mettich in Tunis. The 
inscription is written on all four sides of it. For list of articles bearing 
on it, cf. Bruns, Girard, Riccobono, and Rostowzew, Gesch. d. 
rom. Kol. 322 ff. Trajan's title of Parthicus fixes its date. It con- 
tains, after a dedication of the altar to the emperor (11. 1-4), a letter 
of the procurators. At the bottom of the first column stand the 
words hec lex scripta^ etc., here printed at the end. The letter is 
addressed to the coloni of the villa Magna Variani sive Mappalia 
Siga (cf. col. i, 11. 6-7), and settles certain disputes between them 
and the conductor. There are three main points at issue: What part 
of the produce is due from the tenants? How many days' labor do 
they owe to the conductor each year? What rights have they in 
new land put under cultivation ? Perhaps the general regulations of 
the lex Manciana (cf. pp. 1 7 ff.} on these points are at variance with 
local usage, and need to be modified. More probably, however, as 
in the case of the saltus Burumtanus (cf. no. 1 1 1), the conductor has 
been demanding more than the law allowed. At all events the 
procurators settle the dispute in this letter, in which they set forth, 
in a form adapted to the purpose and perhaps modified for the 
locality, the pertinent regulations of the law mentioned above. This 
document is engraved by the local representatives of the coloni^ 
the magister and the defensor (cf. p. 19). The lex Manciana, being 
intended for all the estates within a given district, covers both 
imperial domains and such private estates as still exist. The doming 
to whom frequent reference is made, are probably private owners, 
or possibly head-tenants (cf. Heitland, Agrlcola^ 343). The con- 
ductores are agents in charge of imperial or private estates. The 
vi/ici are subordinate overseers. Outside of the administrative classes 

[ 394 ] 


the document speaks of coloni^ or regular tenants, inquilini^ possibly 
landless residents on the estates (cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. 341; cf. 
however, Seeck, R.E. 4, 496), and stipendiarii^ perhaps occupants 
of&nagerstipendiarius within thelimitsof thefundus(cf. Rostowzew, 
op. cit. 341). This ager stipendiarius may be identical with the ager 
octonarius (n, 1. 8), i.e. the land upon which eight denarii were to 
be paid for each acre (cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. 341). Licinius 
Maximus (i, 11. 4-5) seems to be the procurator tractus Kartha- 
giniensis y and Felicior, the freedman, is procurator of the local 
saltus. Of the names mentioned at the bottom of the first column, 
Lurius Victor, the son of Odilo, is the local headman. The full 
title of defensor would probably be defensor gentis, although this 
official is not to be identified with the later defensor civitatis (cf. 
Toutain, Nouv. rev. hist. d. droit fr. et etr. 21 (1897), 3897.). 
Whether Flavius Geminius or Felix, son of Birzil, and grandson of 
Annobal, holds this position is uncertain (cf. Toutain, op. cit. 23 
(1899), 411-412; Schulten, Abh. d. konigl. Ges. d. Wiss. %u Got- 
tingen y phil.-hist. Klasse, Neue Folge, n, no. 3, p. 36). The main 
provisions of the document are these: The coloni may put under 
cultivation the subseciva, or small tracts of land not already cultivated 
(i, 11. 69). In return they are to pay the part of the produce fixed 
by the lex Manciana (i, 11. 10 20). Those who occupy farms, 
orchards, or vineyards, or keep bees must pay according to the 
consuetudo Manciana (i, 1. 2O n, 1. 6). Honey fraudulently taken 
to the ager octonarius (to avoid the usual payment?) will be confis- 
cated (n, 11. 6-13). The rental in the case of dried figs and olives 
is determined by usage (n, 11. 1 720). Those who set out an orchard 
of fig trees or a vineyard may have all the figs or grapes for five years, 
but after that they must pay rental (n, 11. 2030). An olive orchard 
planted on uncultivated ground is free for ten years (in, 11. 210); 
wild olive trees, put under cultivation, for five years (in, 11. 1012). 
For each head of cattle four denarii are to be paid (m, 11. 17-20). 
If anyone damage or take away property, a penalty is fixed (in, 
11. 2024). Transfer of land is allowed on certain conditions (iv, 
11. 2-9). After two years abandoned property goes to the overseers 
(iv, 11. 9-21). The coloni must render a certain number of days' 
work free, probably six, each year (rv, 11. 23-27). The inquilini, and 

[ 395 ] 


probably the stipendiarii^ must register (iv, 11. 27 ff.). From the 
fact that farms could be abandoned (iv, 11. 921), it would seem to 
follow that at the beginning of the second century tenants were free 
to leave an estate. 

The rental, including, as it did in most cases, one-third of the 
produce of the land (i, 11. 25 ff.} and six days' labor on the private 
land of the contractor, seems rather high, but on the other hand 
the privilege granted to sub-tenants of bringing waste land under 
cultivation and of enjoying the entire return from it for a period of 
five or ten years, seems to show a desire to keep the coloni on the 
land and confirms the conclusion that they were at liberty to give 
up their holdings. 

The small number of days' labor exacted of the tenants each year 
seems to indicate that slave labor was freely employed on this 
estate, although there is only one reference to slaves in the docu- 
ment (iv, 1. 35), and although we should naturally suppose that 
there must have been a scarcity of slaves at this time in consequence 
of the comparatively small number of prisoners taken in foreign 
wars. For a fragmentary inscription dealing with the imperial 
domains, cf. An. ep. 1913, no. 72. 


(i 1 7 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1031; IG. xn, 3, 175. 

AvTOKparctip Katcrap Oeov Tpai'ai/oO [TlapOitcov] \ fto9, Oeov 
Nepoua vicovos, Tpai'az^o? [ e ASpuz^o?] | SeySflKrro?, d 

5 ap^o]v(Ti teal T^I ftov\r)i /cal TOH ST^IOH ^aip\_LV. | Kal 7ra]pa 

rov Trpearftevrov V/JL&V Tle^rpcovLov rov \ e Hpaa)]z/ro9 teal etc rov 

Tfrrj^Lcr/jLaT^os v/j,a)v \ fjLaOoii\ OTTO)? rjcrOrjre 8fcaSea//.ei/[ov C/JLOV \ 

10 rrjv Trar^pcoiav ap%^, 67ra/ecra9 8[e vfj,d$ \\ el dX?;^]c59 rrjv 

eKevOeplav v^plv o vrarrip /JLOV eScotcev, avrrjv tcara/cvpcxxras . . . 

This inscription is engraved on the same stone as no. 36, and 
comes from Astypalaea. We have adopted the restoration proposed 
by Domaszewski (Ditt. Syll? 832, note). Apparently the privileges 

c 396 ] 


granted to a state by any emperor were valid only during his reign, 
and had to be confirmed by his successors (cf. nos. 40, 1 30). Astypa- 
laea had once been an ally of Rome (Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. 
<fAsie, 114), but it seems that its freedom and immunity from 
taxation had been curtailed (cf. no. 76). 


(118 p. Chr.) 

Lafoscade, 19; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1032 c\ IG. xu, 3, 176; Ditt. 
Syll* 832. 

Avro/cpdro)p Kcucrap, deov Tpaiavov \\ap0uc\jov\ \ uto?, 6eov 
Nepoua vitovos, Tpaiavbs 'ABpiavos \ Se/ 
7KTT09, Brj/jLap^LKT)^ | eof<r/a9, viraros TO 
ap^ovai tcai rrjt /3ov\f}i KOI rci &jj/j,co 
T<5t, ifny<f) la pan, ore /JLCV a7ro\pelv <$>are teal ov 8vvacr0ai, re\elv 
TO 7rayy\\TtKov dpyvpiov epavOavov ov fJirjv O7ro\<rov re rovro 
ov&e etc 7TOT6 <f>peiv avro rjpl*a(r[d. . . . 

From Astypalaea. The liberty of the Astypalaeans had been 
taken away by the Flavian emperors and restored by Trajan (cf 
no. 75). From this document we learn that the aurum coronarium 
was paid by free cities as well as by others. This tax had been re- 
mitted by Hadrian in Italy and lessened in provincial cities (Hist. 
Aug. yit. Hadr. 6). Apparently the payment of the tax had been 
a serious burden for the Astypalaeans, and they sent an embassy 
to the emperor to ask for its remission. Cf. Ath. Mitt. 48 (1923), 



(i 19 p. Chr.) 

OIL. ii, 2959. 

Claudius Quartinus | n viris Pompel(onensibus) salutem. | Et 
ius magistratibus vestri | exequi adversus contumaces |j potestis et 5 
nihilominus, qui | cautionibus accipiendis de|sunt, sciant futurum 
ut non | per hoc tuti sint. Nam et | non acceptarum cautionum peri-|| 
culum ad eos respiciet et quid | quid praesentes quoque egerint, | 10 
id communis oneris erit. Bene | valete. Dat(um) non(is) Octubri- 

[ 397 ] 


15 (bus) Ca|/lagori imp(eratore) Caes(are) Traiano || Hadriano Aug- 
(usto) in co(n)s(ule). 

Bronze tablet from Pompaelo in Tarraconensis. The last sentence 
fixes the date as A.D. 119. The writer's name in full is Ti. Claudius 
Ti. f. Pal. Quartinus (cf. Boissieu, Inscr. de Lyon^ 284, no. 38). He 
was at this time legatus of Tarraconensis. The letter is written at 
Calaguris (or Callagoris) Nasica, the birthplace of Quintilian. Its 
interest lies in the fact that it seems to confirm the judicial compe- 
tence of the local magistrates in the matter of requiring a cautio 
(cf. no. 27). Mommsen would correct quoque to qutque. 


(120 p. Chr.) 

Lafoscade, 23; Ditt. Sy/L 3 833. 

[Avro/cpdrcop] Ka[?]<rap, Oeov Tpal(a)vov TlapOi/cov 1/609, | 
Nepova v\ia>v6s, Tpaiavbs'ASpiavos^e/SaarTo 

%ovcrla$ TO &', | [vTraros r]o 7' , ' 
5 Trjt, ypovo-lai xaipeiv. \\ [Merr^o?] MoSecrro? o Kpariaros ev 
ra St/c|[ata vplv /caTa]vei/j,as ev rfji /cpio-et,* eVel 8e 
e] | o-<f>[eTpi\%ecr6cu ^ptjfjLara v^erepa, ovcrias 
^Jare^oz/ra?, ov <f>dcricovTa<$ 8e /cXijpovo- 
, TOU? [8e] | teal [aujrou? ^peaicrTa? oVra?, 7r67rofi<f)a V/JLCOV 
10 TO avr^iypatyov] \\ rov tyqtyicrfjLaTos Kopvr]\La)(, flpeio-KCoi T&I 
/cpari(TTO)L \ dvOvTrdrcoi, iva el TI TOIOVTOV irj eV^Xe^rat Tiva, \ 
09 Kpwel re Ta/ji(f)io'/3'y)Tov/jLva KOI eiaTrpd^et, nrdvTa \ oaa av 

15 Tt/C09, COt TO <)lOV o7?T6), 6 76 

From Ephesus. The members of the gerusia at Ephesus had lost 
money by bad investments and appealed to the governor for assistance 
in solving their financial difficulties. The former governor of the 
province had given them some help in this matter, but the properties 
of certain debtors had passed into the hands of new owners, and 
these claimed that they did not inherit the obligations of the former 
owners, as they were not their heirs-at-law. The emperor instructed 

c 398 ] 


the present governor to appoint a judge to settle these cases and 
exact the amounts due to the gerusta. The right of TrpcoroTrpagia, 
or first lien on property, was thus granted to the gerusia by the 
emperor. Trajan refused to grant this privilege to Bithynian towns 
to the detriment of private individuals, unless the city already had 
acquired the right from former emperors, who, apparently, had 
granted it freely (Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 108, 109). 


(121-125 p. Chr.) 

B.C.H. 21 (1897), l62 - 

..... 01 XeiTovpyeirayaav ol B fce/crrj/jievoc povov rats rfjt, | 
[TTO\I, e]7r//3aXXo/4YU9 XeiTOvpyiais vTrevOvvoi ecrraycrav rlva \ 
[8e Sel TP^OTTOV crTopwcrOai ra? 0801;?, KOIVWI Siardy/uLari, eStj- 
Xaxra 1 | [tf]Xeua> xai ANTANOTX crvvre\elv vfielv e/9 ra 
ayaXco/xara, || TO rpLrov avveiO'fyepovTas* i] 8e crvveicrcfropa ye- 
ve(T0a) djro | TWV ev MafceSoviai ovrwv ANTANflN. Etvrv^elre. \ 
Ylpo ty' ica\av?)G)V ^lovvicov (ITTO /^vppa^iov. 

This inscription is said to have been found on the site of Heraclea 
in Macedonia. Heraclea was a free state (Caesar, B.C. 3. 34; 
Strabo, 7. 7, p. 326). From this letter we learn that the citizens 
of this city, who owned property, were responsible for the main- 
tenance of that part of the Egnatian Way which lay within their 
territoriurriy or, possibly, of the roads which led from the main 
highway through their district, since the plural form 680^9 is used. 
It is probable that the civitates llberae were required to keep in 
repair the state roads which passed through their domains (cf. 
Le Bas-Waddington, 2806). In the case of Heraclea the citizens 
were helped by the ANTANOI who were required to contribute a 
third of the expense. Perdrizet thinks that the reading of this word 
is incorrect, but offers no emendation. He assumes that it refers 
to some corporation of traders in Macedonia who were concerned 
in the proper upkeep of the roads (B.C.H. 21 (1897), i62/.). The 
reading ' krivravol is suggested by Holleaux (Rev. d. It. gr. n 

[ 399 ] 




(125 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, c. 16; Lafoscade, 104. 

5 'A[7r]oXXa>w|ou 819 TOU 
Ka\l ov~\ JJLOVOV 
| roO H 
e<r[#a ^0)9 7nrpirco. 

OVTI Ka\)i teal d\\yaOa)(, 
j dX]Xa /cal 


We have included a few (nos. 84, 87, 97, 99, 102) of the in- 
scriptions engraved on the walls of the mausoleum of Opramoas > 
a distinguished citizen of Rhodiapolis in Lycia. Before his death, 
Opramoas collected a series of honorary decrees and letters from the 
emperor and provincial governors and had them engraved on the 
tomb which he had erected. They constitute an important record 
for the study of the relation of the central government to the 
municipalities of the province and to the KOIVOV. From them we 
learn that honorary decrees were submitted to the governor or to 
the emperor by the tcoivov and by the cities, that the governor 
had the right of vetoing such decrees, and that an appeal could be 
made to the emperor over the veto of the governor. This is the case 
with decrees conferring unusual honors. It was, apparently, the 
practice of cities to refer honorary decrees to the governor or 
emperor, probably through motives of vainglory or servility, for 
many of the documents on the monument of Opramoas are mere 
acknowledgments by the officials, and there is no indication that 
their sanction of the action of the city was required. In the docu- 
ment which we have given above, the Rhodiapolitani ask for the 
approval of the governor in conferring honors upon Opramoas. 

[ 400 ] 




(125 p. Chr.?) 

Ditt. Or. Gr. 484 ; Alterthiimer von Pergamon^ vin, 2, 279. 

...... \OVjJL6V TO) .......... | ................ /JLeT7TfjL]' 

/^[i/] <^ai\\yecr6ai Si/caios Kara rrjv e^avrov 
8e ravra e^rdcrai, \ [ra jK\^aaTa TWV epya- 

67TJI T?}9 7ToXet<)9 (v)aO)V dv8p(*)V, 7Tpl WV || [6 a7TO(7TaXe/9 5 

IIa\[plvai, S' fce\vara avrovs, r iva SrjXjoi' r\v ell TL \eyeiv 
/3ov\ovro. r O ovv rfjs a|[/x6/-v/reo)9 rpovro? ov r6fjLi/Jio$ tfv y a]X(X)a 
irapd TO SlicaLov fcal irapd ri^v avvaXXayrjv \ [TTpdrreiv avrols 
. Ilapa 'yap rwv epyaartov Kal /caTnjXcov /cal 

ejtv rov \TTTO 

co dcradpia \\ [TO Srj]vdp[iov~\ \afjb/3dveiv ofaiXovTes Kal 10 
rot? TO brjvdpLOv ia\\d(T(Tiv /3ov\[\]o/j,evoi,[<; 7rpo]s [8]e[/ca]67TTa 
Si&ovai ovtc rjpKovvro rrjv TMV d&aaplcov d/jt,i\\frtv, a\\[a /c]ai 
edv Srjvapitov dpyvpwi' n$ djopdarjt TO otydpiov, Ka6* Ka\o~Tov 
Srjvdpiov elcreTrpao'crov dvcrdpiQv ev. ^ESofez/ ovv rjfjLelv 
%X iV I e ^ [ T J^ ^OLTTOV TOVTO 8iop0(*)<T0ai, 'iva /AT} <TV/ji/3aiv 
aivrjTals VTT avTwv \\ TeXwvelcrdat,, KaO* (Lv ovSe/jiiav avTols ^ou- 15 
criav &86o~0ai av^jBeftrjKev. | r 'Ocra /JLCVTOL TWV XCTTTCOI/ o^rapicov 
TTiTrpaafcofAeva Ti^aTai VTTO \ TWV dyopavojuicovy TOVTW, 
vds u>vr)<JtoVTai Tti/69, ijp\<ri> rjfJiziv TIJV TifjLijv 
7rpo$ Kp/j,a, two-re air avT(Sv o-(x)o~\%a0ai TI}I 
r)v K Tov KO\\v/3ov 7rp6ao8ov. 'Q/JLOiw Kal 6ai/ 7rXet / o||i/e9 20 

dpyvpwv &r)vapia)v 8 
i y Kal TOVTOVS \7TTov 8t,S6vai 

ti/a dva\(^epriiai eVt TTJV TpaTTt^av Si&ovat, Be 7T/oo9 Se/cae?TTa 
daadpia, 7Tt\8rj r; T7/9 d/jLenrTiKrjs p<ya<ria($} 8oKt JJLOVOIS To?9 
p<yao-Tal<; oia\ey<T\0ai. 'H(X)e(7)%^?;o-a^ /iTa roOro Kal Tpd 
Tiva crvvKe^coprjKOTe^ eav ||TOt9 Kp&a)v bvopaTa daTrpaTovpav re 
Kal TO KaXovfievov Trap avTols \ 7rpoo-<j)dyi,ov y 8^' wv 7rrjpea^ov 
jjid\io-Ta Tot/9 TOV l^Ovv TriTTpdcTKOVTas. I Kat TavTa ovv eSo/ci- 
/jLdo"a/Jiv SiopOwaOat,* irKeovtKTelaOai yap TOVS \ 6X170^9 VTT 

TOW onvov/jievois TTJV abiKov TWV TriTTpao-KovTCDV ^rj\\/jiiav. 3 
AMA [ 4 01 ] *6 


^ \\Tui6rja-av KOI o>9 eveoprdSia irapci TWV epya&Twv eio7rpo<r- 
croi/|r69, (i7Tp dpvovfjuevcov avrutv 77860)9 eTri&Tevov, TOV /jirj o</>ei- 
ryeiveaOat, TO TOIOVTO \afji/3dva)v KOI Trjv Trap* 

\ Moz>oz> /JLCVTOL a)/j,o\6yovv 

l 8t'8o<j#at eaf|ro69 TO et9 TOZ> 'Ep/ii) \ey6fjivov e/c 
35 a<op/4?79' op/cov eavrols \\ ctTraiTelv avvKe^a^pfiaOai Trapd 

V7TO\(i)VTCOV TO \TTTOV KOi \ 7T/3O9 CtVTOV? dvafyepOVTtoV 7Tpl TOV 

/j,r]8ev CLVTOVS Trapd T^V 8id\Taj;t,v TreiroiriKevai,. Tou? ovv 8id TO 
<ruz/668o9 o/Jivvvai fjirj Su^a/ie|i/ou9 S^So^at TL auro69, (wcrre /JLTJ TTJV 

40 VVVCil liZVTOL KOI aUTOU9 T069 p7[a(r]||Tafc9 7Tpl TOV fJirjSeV atTOU9 

fjLKriKvcu, ev Trji TOV dpjvpov z^o/it<j[/ia]|ro9 Socre* /cat auro 
Si/caiov rjyrjo'd/jLrjv. 'l^XeyovTO /cal eV6^upa[crt]|a9 eavTOis Trotet- 
a6at,(v) eTTiTpeireiv o\a9 re TCOZ^ epyacrTcov eVf^' ore] | 
ra9 /x.7roXa9, T?;9 cruz/aXXayf^]? 01) TOVTO av^copov^arj^, | d\Xa 
eVi TOU9 Tafias CLVTOVS Trapayeiveo'dai /c\vovcrrj[<;, e ? az>] || 

45 aiTido'covTai Tiva> /cal Trap 9 ztcelvwv STJ/AOCTIOV \aiiftdv\jeiv SoO]|- 
\ov } f iva vofJiiiAt*)? Troi,)VTat Trjv eve^vpacriav, &<TTe [TO Trpb rr/9] | 
fcpiaecos TOVTUH T(Si Tpoircoi, \r)fydev p,veiv ro[?9 o(j)ei\ovar^c. | Kal 
TOVTO ovv eSo!;v rj^eiv oura>9 o$el\eiv ryeiv[ev6ai, o?r]a)9 
Trelpiel^ev rj e/cSocrt9, fcal Sea TOV 8rj/jLoaiov /JLGVTOI [SouXou pr) 

50 av]iJ>fJL\\Tpov lv 

X[a]/Lt/3a|z/o~^at, >7 eaz/ bovvai r^9 /*,?; SvvrjTat, TO 
lva[i r]o 6|z/^upoz/ 6Vou ai; TO TTpdyfia ical TO 

. [Ta9 fcez^TJo^ /c/9i|or6t9 yeiveo-Oac /JLTJ eVi 
[i/, d\X]a ?rl 

55 ev\o\jyov el\vai 

^pe[ta9 K\adr)tcov, To[u9J 8e eV[Tpa]T^[<y?;/c]6Ta9 | /cat 
lva[t,fcal ....... o]u9 TCoz/7Tpa7/xaT[co]^ [/ca]t)Lte. . . . /jiov\Ta$ TO 

TOV & ....................... e . fcev /cal o?9 av aXX[ot9J 

TeXa>^at9 | <f)[8pevovTa<> eyvco/jLv 7rote]to*^at ai;Tou9 Trjv V%v- 
60 pa&iav /ca[t || .................. ] Tat9 dyopalot? TrnrpacrKo- 

fievcov i . . | ..................... ft>9 SiBocrdac T^Xo9, aXX' 

ea^ X ... | ............ z^a . piv . . tT?; ......... 

From Pergamum. This rescript is assigned by von Prott (Ath. 
Mitt. 27 (1902), 78^.) to the emperor Hadrian. The city of Per- 

[ 402 ] 


gamum issued bronze coins and the right of exchanging them for 
the Roman denarius was given to contractors at a fixed rate of 
exchange on condition that a certain percentage of their profits 
should be paid to the municipal treasury. The contractors had 
changed the rate arbitrarily, so that both they and the city gained 
an increased revenue. The merchants protested by appealing to 
the emperor who summoned both parties to give evidence. In his 
rescript he reviews the evidence and gives his decision in favor of 
the merchants and traders. In this document we have evidence 
of a municipal monopoly. The Greek cities which retained the 
privilege of issuing coins apparently compelled local traders to con- 
duct business in the local currency, and the exchange of foreign 
money was regulated by municipal laws. From the exchange a 
certain amount of revenue was derived (cf. CIG. 2053). The right 
of exchange was either let to contractors, as in this case, or was 
conducted by the city with officials appointed for the purpose (cf. 
Reinach, B.C.H. 20 (1896), 523^"., where the evidence for public 
and private bankers in the Greek states is collected). Cf. nos. 133, 
199. For a full commentary, cf. von Prott, loc. clt. 



(125-126 p. Chr.) 

CIG. 3835; LeBas-Waddington, 860-863; Lafoscade, 93; Ditt. 
Or. Gr. 502; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 571; OIL. in, 355 and S. 70035 
de Ruggiero, U arbitrate pubblico^ 57. 

laviTa)i> dp^ovcri, /3ov\!ji \ Sfj/iou x a ^' * 
7Tpl ^oy)a<? /epa?, dva\T0i<r / rj$ 7rd\ai ran 

, Tpl@0/jL6VT) TTO\\0)V Tfi3l', Ttji 7rpOVOiai TOV \ /JLyi(TTOV 

avrotcpdropos re\ovs tTv%. 'Evret yap tVeareiXa at>rau 8?;j|Xah> 5 
TO Trpdy/jia '6\ov t t]pop,i)v re ort %/>T; 7T(ueu>, 8uo ra | /ia'Xtara 
rrjv | $ia(J)opav vpelv KZLVOVVTCL ical TO Svcrepy^ /cal Bvaevperov 
TOV TTdjiaro^ 7raojiva, it av TML <tXai'#a>7roH TO Sixaiov 

rc Trep Ta? 

V/JLWV /jLafflv teal i/7ro\|rt||ai/ Trpos aXX?;Xoi;9 eXucrei/, /ca0a>$ etc rrj$ 10 
ffv eTreiityev irpos pe \ ^adijcre^de, ^ TO dvTiypatyov 
be 'EtCTTrepcoi T(2t e7ri\Tpo7ran TOV 



rrjv ^copav &iafjiTp)v KCLK [rovrov dyadb]v v 
\ Kal etc T&V iep&v rov Katcrapo? ypa/JLfjLdrco[v vpeiv 
ort(o) Bel T\\\iv VTrep /cd(TTOv /c\tfpov /cara ryv 
[TOI; Kat<rapo9 dirotyao'iv ef 7/9 av rj\/j,pa<; \df3ijre rrjv 7rcarro- 
TIV. r/ E/caorr[o9 8e TO reXo? TCW^] lepo^Ta/jiiat, rijs] \ ^co/oa? reXecret, 
7rd\iv rives a^pfyicrft'rjTovvTes Trepl avrfj? roO] | ftpdSeiov 
rrjv TTO\IV rr)$ [7rpo(rr)/covo"y]<; Trpoaobov irapaiTiOi] \ 
f dptcelycip avrols TO pe^pi v\yv d f jro\^\avK^vai TOVTCDV. 
20 Il7ro///J||<jE>a Se KOI rfj? TT/OO? r/ E<j7repoi/ eVt(7To[\r;9 TO dvriypa<f)ov 

KOI ^9 r/ EcT7r6/)09 e']|/iol yeypafav. 'EppSxj-ffai vpas ei5^o[/ia(,]. 

II Exempl(ar) epistulae C^^saris scriptae ad | Quietum. | Si in 

quantas particulas, yuos cleros appellant, ager Aezanen|si lovi dicatus 

5 a regibus divisuj sit y non apparet, optimum est, || sicut tu quoque 

existimas, modum qui in vicinis civitatibus | clerorum nee maximus 

nee minimus est observari. Et si, cum | Mettius Modestus con- 

stitueret^ ut vectigal pro is pendere|tur, constitit qui essent c/eruchici 

agri aequum est ex hoc \ tempore vectigal pendi. Si non ^nstitit, 

10 Jam ex hoc tem/>0||re vectigzl pendendum ejt. At si quae morae 

quaerantur \ usque dum pendant mtegrum, dentur. 

III Exempl(ar) epistulae Quieti scriptae ad | Hesperum. | Cum 
variam esse clerorum mensuram | cognoverim, et sacratissimus 

5 imp(erator) con||stitutionis suae causa neq(ue) maximi neq(ue) | 

minimi mensuram iniri iusserit in ea re\gione, quae lovi Aezanitico 

dicata dicitur, | mando tib\^ Hesper(e) carissime, explores qu|^7^ 

10 maximi r/eri mensura, quae minimi in \\ vicinia et in ipsa ilia regione 

sit, et id | per litteras otum mihi facias. 

IV Exempl(ar) epistulae scriptae Quie|to ab Hespero. | Quaedam 
5 negotia, domine, non ali|ter ad consummationem perduci || possunt, 

quam per eos qui usu sunt | eorum periti. Ob hoc, cum mihi in- 
iunxisses ut tibi renuntiarem, quae | mensura esset clerorum circa 
rejgionem Aezaniticam, misi in rem | praesentem ei. . . 

From Aezani. In this group of documents we have an example 
of administrative arbitration. Lands sacred to Jupiter had been 
confiscated by the Greek kings and parcelled out in allotments. The 
holders paid a rental to the municipality and also to the imperial 
fiscus. For this reason the governor refers the dispute, not to the 

[ 404 ] 


senate, but to the emperor. The dispute which had arisen is not 
clear, but apparently the tenants had acquired larger holdings in 
the course of time and continued to pay the same rental as on the 
original smaller leasehold. The emperor instructs the governor to 
find out the average size of such leaseholds in neighboring states 
and regulate those of Aezani accordingly. In the governorship of 
Mettius Modestus the question had arisen as to what lands were 
cleruchic. Apparently, some tenants had ceased to pay rental and 
had held the land as if entitled to absolute ownership (cf. no. 55). 
Mettius had been called upon by the city to reestablish the title of 
the state to the confiscated property. 



(127 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1156^7; Lafoscade, 23; Ditt. Sy//. 3 837; 
Riccobono, p. 325. 

Avrotcpdrayp Ka?<rap, 9eov Tpai'aj/[oi5] | llapditcov vi6$ y deov 
Nepova ina>i/o[<?], | Tpai'ayo? ' Afynai/o? Se/3a<rro9, p[xte]|pu<? 

eo[t>cr/]||a9 r(o) 10! , V7raTosT(o)y',* ASpiavo- 5 

rot? dpx[ov]\(7i Kat> rf 1 fiov\r]i, KOI 
ran r)/j,a)i a P lf . vm aia u>iovv /JLOL 8oKLT tea} cLva^tcala 

a<? 8t8a)/i6 10 

, teal rrjv oliciav T/[/3.] | KXavSlov Sco^parou? TVJV ovcrav 
ev rfji [7ro]|\6t fj 7TicrKvaeTa) ^cofcpdrrj^ f) a7ro86[<7]|$fc) nvl 
ra)V eirixcopiwv, a>9 f^rj ^poi/o>t [^al | a]fjb\iat tcaTapiffrOeirj. 
TaOra eVearetXa teal [TWI \\ tcp]aricrTa)i dvOvTrdrwi Sreprti/ta)t 15 

teal TWL eV^rpoTrcot /AOV [IloJ/LtTrTyi'itat 26oi/[?;p&>t]. | 

K\. Kai^S68o9, wt TO <f>68i[ov'] \ 

Trpoltca uTrecr^rcu. | EuTux6T. KaXa^8a^9 Mapr/a^? diro 

?. K\. KdvSi&o? aTreScotca ryv 7riaTO\[\]yv AoXXttot 20 
TIJI, TTpo a lw\y] \ Matcoi/ tV r^ etc/eXqariai,. 

From Stratonicea-Hadrianopolis. This city had been founded by 
Hadrian himself by the grant of civic status to a village on the site. 
The form of government is that usually found in Greek states, 
witharchons, senate, and popular assembly. The calendar, however, 

[ 405 ] 


was Roman. The city was unable to support itself and pay the 
requisite tribute to Rome. On appeal to the emperor, Hadrian 
remitted the taxes ra re\rj ra etc 7-779 %a>pa9. It is possible that 
the mention of the imperial procurator in this connection should 
be interpreted as a reference to rents from public lands of the 
emperor (Weber, Unters. Gesch. Hadr. 1 36 /.), which he assigns 
to the new municipality. On the policy of creating new munici- 
palities in Asia, cf. Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. d'dsie, 100 ff. 
The second request of the embassy is an interesting example of 
the petty problems referred to Rome by the cities in this period. 
The house of Socrates had fallen into disrepair, and the emperor 
gives orders that the owner should restore the building or sell it 
to some citizen of Stratonicea. There is no evidence that this 
house had been converted into a shrine because Hadrian may have 
resided there during his visit to the city (cf. Weber, op. cit. 138). 



(128 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, c. 14; Lafoscade, 103. 

KCU\ dvri[(TTpdT~\7j\<yo<;, rfji KOLVTJI rov 
K\/c\rjaiai %alpet,v. To reipav rovs dy 
Ka\6v eo-rw ^d\\^C\ara efcuperfa)]? | dvafyaivere* 
warrep teal v[y]v ' A7roXA(w|iuau 8k rov KaXX^aSoi;, o[?] vpelv 
dp^iepea \ TOP vibv 0\6vT[ct)]<; 7rap[0"%]r)Tat,, teal av|ro9 Trapa- 
10 ycvofjievos ^>L\o\reiiJio\u^v()L KOI || avikvri v/jieiv TOV afr[oO 
7r\ovro]v, et9 tc6o"\fJLov Tr/9 TOU Wvovs aft[a9 /jiap^Tvpa) I r[a]?9 
Teifials reu9 69 avTo[y vfi u/iwz/] 8o\0r)<7o/j,vai,s rr)v re Trpo- 
&[piav eTrcrpe^TTCo \ tcvpcoOfjvat, avrdot, rov r[e elcnovra (?) dpx l *\~ 
15 pea || viov [au]rof) 'A7ro\Xcoi/^[oi/ ..... 

See note on no. 80. In this letter the governor approves in 
advance the honors which the provincial assembly proposes to confer 
upon Opramoas, and apparently ratifies the election of his son to 
the chief priesthood of the province. There is no evidence that 
the provincial assembly was required to submit their action in either 

[ 406 ] 


case to the governor or that he exercised veto powers in the elections 
of provincial officials. For the veto of the governor on provincial 
decrees cf. no. 97. 


(129 p. Chr.) 

Lafoscade, 26; I.B.M. 3, 487; Ditt. fy//. 3 838. 
Av[To~\fcpdra)p Kaiaap, deov [Tpai'az/oO] | \\ap6[i\KOV f/09, 

9 TO i 

TO 7, 7rarr)p 7rarpto9, <>cria>j/ T09 ap]x oua l> *<*& ^77*, 5 
fc xaipeiv \ A. "E[p]a<JTO9 /cat 7roX[t]r7;9 U[/A]O>^ [e 
fc"\ai 7ro\\[(ifcts] \ 7rX[ei)cr]at T[T)]I; ^a\aa[(ra^, /cal 
a?ro rov[rov Sf^]aro9 | Xp';crfc/i[o]9 76^ecr[^at rfji 7rarp]/Sf 
roi) 6^^[of9 T]o[i>9] ^76|^oz^a9 t 8t[a]/co^i[t(7a^], e[/x]ot Be ^[i?] 

o"u[^7rXu]<rti;, || TO fJLev Trpwrov eis 'PoSov UTTO rrjs 10 

VVV & ilTTO 'E\6f (7661/09 -77 

[ecrrt ^ai So/cet T/;9 rt]/x?;9 ^[^]o?, | TO dpyvpiov, oaov 

ol (3ov\vovTS, [So;cra> T//9 a/)^at]pe<rta9 [e]i/e/ca. || EuTf^etTe. 15 

From Ephesus. Hadrian requests the Ephesians to elect Erastus 
to the municipal senate. The scrutiny of the qualifications of the 
candidate is placed in the power of the city, while the emperor 
promises to pay the requisite summa honoraria (cf. Pliny, />. ad 
Trai. 112, 113). Nothing is known of the method of election to 
the senate at Ephesus in this period beyond the indications given 
in this letter. If the word dp^aipecrLa^ is properly restored in 
1. 14, it may indicate that senators were elected at the special 
meeting of the senate or assembly at which the usual magistrates 
were elected (cf. Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. (fAsle y 199). 


(i 29 p. Chr.) 
Ditt. Syll? 839. 

\vroKpdropa Kaiaapa, Oeov \ 'Ipaiavov Tlapdifcov vlov, Oeov \ 
Ne/ooua vitovbv, r Fpalavov ' ASpiavov \ 2</3a(TT6v teal *O\vfJL7Tt,ov t 

[ 407 ] 

5 Srj/jLapH^Lfcfj^ %ovcria<; TO (i)y' y virarov \ TO <y', TraTepa Trar/oiSo?, | 

f] /3oV\rj Kal 6 8/7/4O9 6 'E(/)(7tCO^ | TOV tSlOV KTKTT^V Kal 

10 St,a | r^9 dvv7rpj3\ijTovs Swpeas 'A/OTe||/u&, SiSovra Trj dew 
K\rjpo\vo/JiL(Sv teal /SeffXijicoTcov ra Sifcaia | KOI TOU9 

s, <retT07ro/-t[7T/a9 8e] | aTr' kiyv7r7ov TraptyovTay Kal TOU? 

re || /cal TOP 
a TO . . 

From Ephesus. In visiting this city, Hadrian granted to the 
priests of the goddess Diana the right of receiving inheritances in 
the name of the divinity. Cf. Ulpian, Frag, xxn, 6: deos heredes 
instituere non possumus, praeter eos, quos senatus consultis con- 
stitutionibusve principum instituere concessum est, sicuti lovem 
Tarpeium, Apollinem Didymaeum Mileti, Martem in Gallia, 
Minervam Iliensem, Herculem Gaditanum, Dianam Efesiam, 
Matrem deorum Sipylenen, Nemesim, quae Smyrnae colitur, et 
Caelestem Salinsem Carthigini. Apparently those who violated 
the laws of the sanctuary were liable to condemnation, and their 
property was confiscated for the benefit of the temple's treasury. 



(i 3 rp.Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, c. 18, Lafoscade, 105. 


5 \wviov t9 ToO KaX\6aSoi> /cal 
<f)i\OTifjLi(u, fjv 7rpo9 T 

vTtot, Srjvdpia Trevrd/ct,? /Jiv\pia 

et? Trjv /ca\Ta\\ayrjv TOV vo^lapaTOS Srjvapiois 
10 ?rei/Ta/C69 %i\ioi<s. Trjv ovv 7rpo87]\ovfJLe\vrjv OVTOV Scopeav yS 
j3ai< 7ri T TML acrd\ev\Tov teal dfjieTaOeTov 6t9 TOV del 
el\vat, Kal 7rl Tals a\\ai<s aipecrecriv, al$ 
15 *l&pp<x)<T0ai ere ev^o^aL. 'E8o#?; || irpo [. . .] el 

See note on no. 80. The governor ratifies the establishment of 
an endowment fund of fifty-five thousand denarii, the income of 
which is to be devoted to an annual distribution to the officials 

c 408 j 


and members of the provincial assembly (Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, 
c. 20). The gift of five thousand denarii, made in the previous year 
for the exchange of money, is interesting. The exchange of local 
and imperial money was a form of taxation (cf. nos. 81, 133), and 
this gift was designed to relieve the people who attended the 
assembly and had to make purchases at the fair held in connection 
therewith (cf. no. 73). It appears, however, that his help had 
not been needed, and this sum is now included in the endowment 

(132 p. Chr.) 

CIL. m, S. i, 7282; Dessau, 315. 

Imp. Caesari divi Traiani | Parthici f., divi Nervae nep , | 
Traiano Hadriano Aug. p. m., | tr. p. xvi, cos. in, p. p., Olympio 
ob || multa beneficia quae viritim | quae publice praestitit, resti-| 5 
tutori coloniae suac, Troadenses | per legatos M. Servilium Tu- 
tilium | Paulum et L. Vedumnium Aulum. || Tp&>a8eW. 10 

A square base found in 1886 at Athens probably on the site of 
the gymnasium Hadriani. Lines 89 were added by another hand. 
The colonia Alexandria Troas was founded between 27 and 
12 B.C. (cf. Kornemann, R.E. 4, 550). This inscription celebrates 
the restoration of the colony by Hadrian. For other inscriptions 
cut at the same time in similar circumstances, cf. CIL. in, S. i, 
7281, 7283, and IG. 111,472-486. 

(i 37 p. Chr.) 

Ditt. Or. Gr. 629; Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 1056, 11. 1-16. 

['ETT! AvTotcpdropos Kaicrapos, deov Tpaiavov YIapOi]/cov 
vio[v, #e]oi) [Nepova vlavov, Tpaiavov ' ASpiavov He^acrrov y 
Sjj/jLap^Lfcfj^ | %ov<rias TO fca ', avroKparopos TO (3', VTT^UTOV TO 
7', TraTpos 7raT/o/So9, V7rdra)[v A(ovtciov) \l\iov KatVa/oo? TO 
Il(o7r\iov) KoiXiov Ba\pivov]. \ 

[ 409 ] 


S6y/Jia /3ov\rj<;. \ 'Evri T$covveov$ J3a)vveov$ rov Alpdvov irpoebpov, 
rot) *A\J;dvSpov rov \\ QiKoirdropos ypafjifiareco^ 
/cal &tf/jLOv 9 MaXfyov 'OXa^oO? /cal ZeffeiSov Ne<ra 
f}<; vofjii/jiov dyo/j,evr)<;, e^lrrjcfricrOr) ra vTroreray- 
?? [eV r]o?9 Tra\ai %/ooi><w \ eV root reXcovi/cwi VO/JLCDI 
7roT\v ovtc dveXTj/jLtyOij, 7rpa(7[(reT]o 8e /c 
$ y ev\ypa<t>o/Jivov rrjt, fjuiaOdxrei, rov reXwvovvra rrjv 
TroielcrOaL a^oXou^a)? rcSt voptoi fcal rfji \ crvvr)6eiai> 
ivev Se 7T\i<rrdfci<; Trepl rovrov fyrrfo-ei? ^^iv^<rQ\ai 
10 fJie^ra^v rdov evTropw \\ ?rpo9 rou? reXcoi/a?* SeSo^^at, rou? 
ap%ovra$ KOI 8e/ca7rpa)TOU9 Siaicpelvovras \ ra firj 
roof, vb\Ltoi evypdtyat rfjt zwyiara fjuadcocrei, teal 
ktcaarwi etSet TO | e/c avvrjOeia^ reXo?, teal 7rei8dv 
Kvp(06r)i rd>i /JbicrOov/jievcot,, evypacfrfjvai pera rov rrpwrov VO\/JLOV 
rfji ovarji, dvrifcpvs [^]^p[oi/] XeyofjLf-vov 'Pa/3a- 
j, [rri\fie\elcr6ai Se rov? rvy%d\vovras Kara /caipbv apyov- 
ra9 teal SetcaTrpoorovs teal (TvvSitc[ovs rov~\ firjSev Trapairpdao'eiv \\ 
15 rov fjLi(7dov^evov. 

From Palmyra. We omit the Aramaic version recorded on the 
stone, and the register of taxes imposed by the decree, which is 
recorded in both Greek and Aramaic. The customs were usually 
under imperial control (Cagnat, Les impots indirects chez les 
Romains), but Palmyra, in the midst of a desert, had no other 
revenue except that which she derived from her position as a way- 
station on the trade-route to the Orient. There is no evidence that 
the Romans collected portoria in Syria (Mommsen, E.E. 5, 18). 
This law is proposed by the Palmyran senate which authorizes the 
magistrates and decaproti to draw up the tariff in those particulars 
not specified in the existing law. After their proposed tariff was 
ratified by the firm ofpublicani which collected the tax, the schedule 
was to be posted in a public place where the traders could refer to 
it in case of a dispute with 'the collectors. Mylasa in Caria also 
had control of the tax on goods entering that port (OIL. in, S. i, 
7151; Dessau, Hermes^ 19 (1884), 436^.; cf. p. 140). 

[ 410 ] 



(117-138 p. Chr.) 

IG. ii and in (editio minor), IIOO; de Ruggiero, U arbitrate 
icO) 36. 

Ke. i/o. 6e. ' ASpiavov. | Ot TO \aiov yewpyovvTes TO rpirov | 
, r; TO oySoov ol Ta \ 'iTTTrap^ou ^copia ra VTTO 
TOV (friGicov || TrpadevTa /cercrrj/jievoi,' pova yap e|#e/a TO Si/caiov 5 
TOVTO e^ei* fcara<f)\pera)orav 8e lipa root, dp%a<r0cu o"vvtco\[fji,iSfj$ 
O9 \6yov To[0 | crvv/co/jiiQo/jLevov, rot? eXeaiya^?, || 

a7roypa<f)e<T0a)- 10 
TOU? Ta/u'a<? fca~\l 
rov /crjpv/ca Svo \ [ ............ ]tSoi/T<? V7roypa\\(f)ijv [?;] b~e 15 

7r[o7yoa</>]^ 6(7Tto /j,ra opfcov | /^at iroaov CTVVZKOIIKTZV TO TCCLV, \ 
teal OTL ot,a SovXov TOvSe rj (i7r\V\depov Tovoe* eav & 7ra)\tjo"ijc 
TOV | KapTTov o SecTTTOT?;? ToO ^topiof, r} o || yewpyos r) o /cap- 20 
TTWVTJS, a7roypa<f)\(T0a) Se Trpbs TOVS CLVTOVS fcal o eV e^a| ywyfji, 
TTLTrpacrtcayv, TTOCTOV TriTrpdcr/cei | fcal TIVL ical TTOV op/i[e]? TO 
'O 8[e] | aTroypa^i]^ %ft)/>i? Trf^Trpacr/Cft)^] eV 6^a-|| 
v o co^e^Xei/ 17^ tca[rvr)vo\(os'] \ Ti)t TroXe/, GTepecrOco 25 
rot) 7rpa^[eVTo<s]. | '() 8e tyevoei? dTroypa<f)a$ 7rot?;<7a[9] | >*; Ta9 
Trepl TT;? <rvvKo/j,i$ri<; [fi T]a[? Trepl] | TT}^ %aya)yr)<i f) virep 
%a)plov, [o /Lt?; 7ra]||pa <f>icrfcov eVptaTo /i^ ' \TCTT dpy[io]\v [o]*> 30 
oyooov KdTeveyKMV, cr[T6pe|<7^a), TO Se ij/jnav 6 

r)V dva7r6y[pa7TTa 

a?r[o]<7T6p ..... | ........ 35 

09 auT09 r) ov[riva \ av eX^Tat, TrtTrpao'/ccJTO) pev ef a?r[o- 

, TO e TJ/JLHTV e<7Ta> ^/iocrtoi/. pa(f)<roy 4 
/cat 6 ?/i7ropo9, Tt ^dyec | /cat TTOCTOI/ Trap' 

<ra9 <f)0d<rr)i teal /Aiivv\\()t)t, t ypa(f><r6a) teal Ti]i iraTpiSi avTov VTTO 45 
TOI) | SIJ/JLOV KafjioL Ta9 St Trept TOVTMV Bitcas \ ^XP 1 P* v TrevTq- 
f) f$ov\\r) fjiovrj rcpeiveTco, TO, Se u?rp TOUTO 

'Eaz> 8e TWI/ eV ToO irXoiov Tt9 || lArjvvcrrji, 50 
<rTaTrjb<; *rri fj$ rjM^at, j3ov\r)V dOpoKraTa), el 


S' virep Tot>9 | TrevTrjKOVTa a propels efy TO fj,fjLr)vv\fjLVOv, e/c- 
xXrjcriav feat StSoa-dco TOM e\ey\%avTi TO r}fjuo-v. 'Eai/ 8e tc/ca\e- 

55 (TijTat, T*9 r) || e/ite ^ TOP avOviraroVy ^eiporoveirco avv\&ifcovs 6 
877/409. rl \va Se dTrapairrjra r]L Ta | Kara T&V /catcovpyovvTOW 
eV^rJa/ufa], Ti,\fjLij$ 1$ TO STJ/AOO^OI/ /caTa<e/>eV0a> TO e\ai\ov, 

60 7?T49 ai> eV TTJI xcopai fji. Et Se TTOT u</>op[t]||a9 \aiov yevo- 

TC\OV 17} TO /C T&V \ TpLTtoV fj OyS6(0V KaTa(f>p6flVOV T7/9 

o\ov T[O]^ eviavTov SrjfjLocrias ^pe/a9, e^e|o-Tft) T0t9 p\V 
TO e\aiov rj TTCLV \ rj /tepo9 SevTepav ajroypaQrjv 

65 7roi,vi<Taii\\voi$ /cat SrjfjLOffiov TO T 6<f)t,\6fJLVov | irbcrov CCTT\V 
. . . . o ol e\ai)vai rj o[/] ap7v|pOTa/ita[t] ov !3ov\ovTai Trap* au- 

70 T&vXa/Selv, \ $v\d[rTeiv ]| Ta \\crtc. . . . 

From Athens. In the first line Dittenberger proposed the re- 
storation fce(\evi) ^0(^09) 6e(oii) and dated the document after 
the death of Hadrian. Premerstein proposed /cefydXaiov) vofaov) 
0(ov) r ASpiavov and would date the law in 124125, the year 
of Hadrian's first visit to Athens (cf. Weber, Unters. Gesch. Hadr. 
165). Although Athens was a free city, allied to Rome, and free 
to enact her own laws, Hadrian was asked to devise new laws which 
he modelled on those given by Solon and Draco (Hieron., Chr. y ab 
Abr. 2137). As Solon is said to have restricted the exportation of 
olives from Attica, it is possible that this document may contain 
one of the clauses of Hadrian's legislation, although it seems to 
be a separate enactment. The law stipulated that the olive-growers 
must reserve one-third of their supply to be sold to the Athenian 
state at the market price, with the proviso that tenants on the estate 
of Hipparchus, formerly owned by the imperial fiscus, should 
reserve one-eighth only. Failure to declare the amount of oil pro- 
duced, or the amount bought or sold for export, or a false declara- 
tion, led to confiscation. The Athenian senate had jurisdiction over 
cases in which less than fifty amphorae were involved. Where 
greater quantities were in question, the case came before the popular 
assembly. Appeals could be taken to the emperor or to the governor, 
and in such cases the city was represented by advocates elected by 
popular vote. 

The special consideration shown to those on the estate of Hip- 
parchus is noteworthy. Hipparchus was the grandfather of Herodes 

c 412 ] 


Atticus and his lands had been confiscated by the fiscus because he 
had been suspected of revolutionary designs (Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 
2. i. 2). If these lands had been sold outright, as seems to be 
implied, it is difficult to understand why the purchasers should be 
entitled to such favorable consideration in comparison with other 
landowners in Attica. We suspect, however, that the verb TrpaOevra 
is used here in the same sense as in the law concerning the disposal 
of the public lands of Thisbe (cf. no. 129 and commentary), and 
that the lands of Hipparchus formed an imperial estate within the 
territory of Attica in spite of the fact that Athens was in possession 
of the status of a civitas foederata et liber a. 

Although the law implied that the city must pay the prevailing 
market price (11. 5859), it is difficult to understand why there 
should be any difficulty in securing an adequate supply of oil in 
the open market under such circumstances. It is probable that the 
city fixed a price lower than that prevailing in the export trade, and 
this law virtually imposes a tax upon the olive-growers in so far 
as the price paid by the city for the third of their produce is below 
the current market quotations. 


(117-138 p. Chr.) 

IG. ii and in (editio minor\ 1 103. 

..... fJLrpr][s ............ ]|8err;y 8to/3eXt'az/ ........ 

... .a /i^Sef ........ rot?] | 8e eV 'EXeucreun d\iv<riv areXeiav 

l%0v[tov elvai orav ev 'EXet>]|<rem eV rf/6 dyopai iriir^datc^aiv^ 
a>9 fjievrji [ ...... f (va TO &ia ra] \\ elaaycoyia o<eXo9 619 jj,ya TL 5 

T[OU<? 8e ......... ] | /cat Toi/9 ird\iv tca 

......... ] | /3ou\o/ueu r) evbei^iv avrwv 

T7/9 ^ ' A\piOV TTCiyOV /Soi;X7)9* TOV 

r) aTrorearaf 7rnrpa(rtC[Ta)]o'av Se Trai/ra r) avrol oi || 

ff 01 TTp&TOC flap* dVTWV O)VOv[/Ji]vOt, * TO & KOI TpiTOVS IO 

avr&v wvicov 

d$. 'favrrjv rrjv eVto-roX^i/ 
ev Heipaei \ (rr^aare Trpb TOV Seiy/jLaTo?. Eu 

[ 413 ] 


T* *Iov\iov 

From Athens. In this letter there appears to be an interesting 
attempt on the part of the writer of the letter to reduce the high 
cost of living in Athens by suppressing the middleman. Merchandise 
brought into the city must be retailed by the importer, or by the 
first purchaser. Possibly the law dealt only with the importation 
of fish. The arrogance of the fishermen at Athens was proverbial, 
and it is possible that the dealers in the fishmarket had combined 
to compel higher prices; cf. Wilhelm, Jahreshefte d. ost. arch. 
Inst. 12 (1909), I46/. Athens, though a free city, was unable 
to cope with her own problems, and appealed to the emperor (?), 
probably through the curator reipublicae, to devise legislation which 
would prevent speculation and consequent advancement in the 
cost of food supplies (cf. no. 65*7). For a list of curator es at Athens, 
cf. R.E. s.v. curator. On the importance of the Areopagus as a 
court in Roman times, cf. Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Polksrecht y 
86, n. 4. 



(117-138 p. Chr.) 

IG. ii and in (editio minor), 1 104. 

........ Se^oprai TO dpyvpiov, eTTiri^iov opi^ertocrav \ avrol? 

Kara rrjv rrjs a7re[t]0/a9 a%lav e[a*/] S[e] ol 7ra|/9a8o[#e]j/re9 

eicrfyepew fjirj ftovXcovrai, [eljra | vTrevOvvot ecrrtocrav Trpwrov 

5 /Ltei> tcaroa"TiaLwv TOAca)[i/], || a<' ov &eov Troir)<raG6ai rrjv 

ovfc 7roir)<Tav\TO, fJi^pc ^r\vS^v aXXcoz/ Svo rij? T\vraia<; a7ro-\ 


ol dpyvporafiiai, fJLera \ rov /cr)pvtco$ ra? 


ev TWV &Sa)/c6T\a)v, elra /cal rwv eyyvrjrcov arrives virevQuvoi 


This inscription from Athens is assigned by Boeckh (CIG. 354) 
to the time of Hadrian. The document appears to be an imperial 
edict regulating the collection of taxes. These were farmed out to 


contractors who were required to furnish securities for the proper 
fulfilment of their obligations. Those who failed to comply with 
the terms of their contract were fined. In case of refusal to pay the 
fine, interest was charged on the amount due on the defaulted 
payment. If, after two months, the contractor was still recalcitrant, 
the securities must be sold at public auction under the privilege of 



(117-138 p. Chr.) 

Carcopino, Melanges de 1'ecole franf. de Rome^ 26 (1906), 365- 
481; An. ep. 1907, no. 196; Bruns, 116; Girard, p. 874; Ricco- 

b no > P- 357- 

Coloni. . .tuani rogamus, procurato|r^, per />rovidentiam ves- Col.i 
tram, quam | nomine GV/csaris praestatis, velitis nobis | et utilitati 
illius consulere, dare no||b/j eos agros qui sunt in paludibus et | in 5 
silvestribus instituendos olivetis | et vineis, lege Manciana con- 
dicione | jaltus Neroniani vicini nobis. Cum \ ^deremus hanc 
pe///ionem nostrum \\futidum suprascripturn N\eronianum \ mere- ro 
mentum habitatorum | 

(Desunt versus circa octo) 

iubeas. Sermo procurator/^ /m|p(eratoris) Caes(aris) Col. n 

Hadrian! Aug(usti). Quia Cae^r n(oster) pro \ infatigabili cura sua, 
per qutfw adsi\due pro humanis utilitotibus excuifl/, o;n||nes partes 5 
agrorum, quat tarn oleis au/ | vineis quam frumentis aptae sunt 
^|roli iubct, itcirco permissu prov/V/|^;/tiae eius, potestas fit omnibus 
e//'#|m eas partes occupandi, quae in c^/||wris elocatis saltus Blan- 10 
diani e/ U|^nsis et in illh partibus sunt quae ex \ saltu Lamiano et 
Domitiano iunctae \ Thusdritano sunt nee a conductoribus \ exercentur 

Fructuum q\\&m coloni ob summam Caes. cle\mentiam is qui /oca. Col. m 
neglecta a conduc\torikus 0ccupaverit, qua^ du\ri j^/ent, tertias partes 
fructuuw || dabit\ de eis quoq(ue) regionibus (\\i\ae ex Lamiano et 5 
Domitiano | saltu iunctae Tuzritano sunt | tantundem dabit. De 
oleis quas quisyw<? | aut in scrobibus posuerit aut oleas/r|dV inseruerit^ 10 
captorum fructuum \ nulla pars decent proximis annis exige\tur cet. 

[ 415 ] 


1. iv -Earinus et Doryphorus Primigenio \ suo salutem. Exemplum 
epistulae scripjtae nobis a Tutilio Pudente egregio viro | ut notum 
5 haberes et it quod subiectum est || r^leberrimis locis propone. Verri- 
dius | Bassus et lanuarius Martial! suo salutem. \ Si qui agri cessant 
et rudes sunt, si qui j//|vestres aut palustres in eo saltuum trac\tu, 
wlentis lege Mancia# colere ne prohibeas. 

Ill, 11. 12. fructuum. . .qui, Schulten, from the letters remaining. 

A stone inscribed on all four sides found at Ai'n-el-Djemala in 
Tunis in 1906. The upper and lower parts of the stone are lacking. 
The principal commentaries on it are those of Carcopino, Joe. cit. ; 
Mispoulet, Nouv. rev. hist. d. droit fr. et etr. 31 (1907), 5-48; 
Schulten, Klio y 7 (1907), 188-212; Carcopino, Klio, 8 (1908), 

The inscription belongs to the time of Hadrian; cf. col. n, 1. 2. 
Different explanations have been given of the contents of the 
document by different commentators. To follow the analysis of 
Rostowzew (cf. Gesch. d. rom. Kol. 334^), which seems the most 
convincing, of the officials mentioned in the document, Earinus (or 
Carinus) is probably procurator of the saltus or regio concerned; 
Doryphorus, his adtutor\ Verridius Bassus, procurator tractus', Janu- 
arius, his subordinate; Martialis, perhaps a secretary; Tutilius Pudens 
is one of the predecessors of Verridius Bassus in the office of 
procurator tractus. The document then seems to be made up of the 
following parts: (i) a petition addressed to the procurator tractus 
Carthaginiensis (tuani . . . incrementum habit.} by the c oloni of a certain 
saltus ; (2) a letter from Tutilius Pudens, a former procurator tractus, 
to Primigenius, of which only the word iubeas is extant. This letter 
Primigenius had neglected to publish; (3) the sermo procuratorum, 
extending through exigetur cet. The sermo procuratorum recited the 
apposite parts of the general statute, known as the lex Manctana, 
with the proper adaptation to the saltus concerned; (4) a letter of 
the procurator saltus and his assistant to Primigenius, and (5) a 
letter to Martialis. Earinus and Doryphorus speak of sending a 
copy of a letter by Tutilius Pudens and a document appended to it 
(it quod subiectum esf). The appended document is of course no. 3 
(cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. 334). The lex Manciana, to which the 

[ 416 j 


petitioners refer, was a Flavian statute, drawn up perhaps by a 
legate of Vespasian (cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. 336). This law was 
modified in some respects by the lex Hadriana. To the later law, 
however, the petitioners make no reference. In the general statute 
the maxima and minima of the contributions (paries) and the days' 
work (operae) required of coloni were probably fixed. In the sermo 
procuratorum, within the ranges fixed by the law, the contributions 
and services required of the coloni of the saltus concerned were 
established. This became the lex saltus, and, since it was under the 
protection of the numen of the emperor, it was inscribed on an altar; 
cf. ara legis Hadrianae (Bruns, 115). By comparing the extant 
portions of the ara legis Hadrianae with those of our inscription, 
we are able to fill out large lacunae in both documents. In this way 
the long italicized passages in cols, n and in of this inscription have 
been restored. In their petition the coloni ask permission to bring 
waste land under cultivation. Their request is granted not only for 
land never before cultivated but also for land which has been out 
of cultivation for ten years, with the further concession, that, for 
a fixed term of years, the tenants shall not be obliged to pay a part 
of the produce as rental (cf. col. in). Whether the provisions of the 
lex Hadriana^ upon which the procurator bases his decision (cf. 
col. n), applied only to a specified number of imperial domains, to 
all those in Africa, or to imperial domains, wherever situated, is a 
matter of dispute. Probably the regulations applied to Africa only. 
For the organization of a saltus^ cf. pp. 17 ff. 


CIL. n, 5941; Dessau, 6954. 

L. Aemil. M. f. M. nep. Quirina Rectus domo Roma, qui et 
Karth. | et Sicellitanus et Assotanus et Lacedaemonius et Baste- 
tanus | et Argius, scriba quaestorius, scriba aedilicius, donatus equo 
publ. | ab imp. Caesare Traiano Hadriano Aug., aedilis coloniae 
Karthagi., patronus rei publicae Assotanor. testamento suo || rei 
pub. Assotan. fieri iussit, epulo annuo adiecto. 

Set up at Asso near Caravaca in Spain. Rectus was a Roman 
AMA [ 4*7 ] 2 7 


citizen and also a citizen of five other municipalities, one in Africa, 
two in Spain and two in Greece (cf. no. 24), a municipal official 
in Carthage and patron of Asso. He probably owed these honors 
to the favor of Hadrian. 

(119-138 p. Chr.) 

OIL. n, 3239. 

Imp. Caesari divi \ Trairftt* Parthici \ f. divi Neruae n. \ Traiaw0 

5 Jf/tfdr/||ano Aug., pont. max., \ trib. pot cos. \ in, p. p., im/>. // 

10 opt. max. | q. \>r\ncipi r^//ta|tori municipii \ Ilugonenses d. d. 

Found at Hugo in Tarraconensis. Whether we should restore 
restitutori, fundatort or conditori Mommsen considers uncertain. 
The importance of the inscription for us lies in the fact that it 
seems to record the elevation by Hadrian of a civitas stipendiaria 
to the position of a municipium. 


(138 p. Chr.) 

GIL. vm, 270 = vm, S. 1 1451 ; Bruns, 61 ; Riccobono, p. 236. 

S.C. de nundinis saltus Beguensis in t(erritorio) | Casensi, de- 
scriptum et recognitum ex libro sen|tentiarum in senatu dictarum 
Kari luni Nigri, C. Pompo|ni Camerini cos., in quo scripta erant 
5 A/ricani iura et id || quod i(nfra) s(criptum) est. Idibus Oct.. . . 
In comitio in curia \ul(ta) \ adfuerunt Q. Gargilius Q. f. Antiq(u)us, 
Ti. Cl. Ti. . . . Pa/. Quar/inus, | C. Oppius C. f. Vel. Severus, 
C. Herennius C. f. Pa/. Caecilianus, M. Iu/. | M. f. Quir. Clarus, 
P. Cassius P. f. Cla. Dexter q(uaestor), P. Nonius M. f. Ou/. 
Mac|rinus q. In senatu fuerunt c. || 

10 S.C. per discessionem factum. Quod P. Cassius Se|cundus, P. 
Delphius Peregrinus Aleius Alennius Maxi|mus Curtius Valerianus 
Proculus M. Nonius Mucianus | coss. verba fecerunt de desiderio 
amicorum Lucili Afri|cani c. v., qui petunt: ut ei permittatur in 

15 provincia Afric(a), regione || Beguensi, territorio Musulamiorum, 
ad Casas, nundinas | mi nonas Novemb. et xn k. Dec., ex eo 
omnibus mensibus mi non. | et xn k. sui cuiusq(ue) mensis in- 
stituere habere, quid fieri | placeret, 

[ 418 ] 


de ea re ita censuerunt: permittendum Lu|cilio Africano, c. v., 
in provincia Afric(a), regione Beguensi, || territorio Musula- 20 
miorum, ad Casas, nundinas mi non. | Novemb. et xn k. De- 
cembr. et ex eo omnibus mensibus mi non. et xn k. | sui cuiusq(ue) 
mensis instituere et habere, eoque vicinis | advenisq(ue) nundinandi 
dumtaxat causa coire conve|nire sine iniuria et incommodo cuius- 
quam liceat. || 

Actum idibus Octobr. P. Cassio Secundo, M. Nonio Muciano. | 25 
Eodem exemplo de eadem re duae tabellae signatae sunt. | Signatores: 
T. Fl(avi) Comini scrib(ae), C. luli Fortunati scrib(ae), | M. Caesi 
Helvi Euhelpisti, Q. Metili Onesimi, C. luli Perijblepti, L. 
Verati Phile(rotis), T. Fl(avii) Crescentis. 

Two stones, upon each of which the entire inscription was cut, 
were found in 1860 and 1879 respectively in Henschir Begar in 
Tunis. For a commentary on the inscription, cf. E.E. 2, 271 ff. 
The inscriptions were perhaps cut in the third or fourth century. 
Permission to establish markets was granted sometimes by the senate 
(cf. Plin. Epp. 5. 4; Suet. Claud. 12) and sometimes by the emperor 
(cf. Dig. 50. ii. i). The liber sententiarum in senatu dictarum^ 
from which this document was copied, is known more commonly 
as the acta senatus (e.g. Suet. lul. 2O; Aug. 5. 36) or acta patrum 
(Tac. Ann. 5. 4) or comment 'arii senatus (Tac. Ann. 15. 74). On 
the senatorial archives cf. p. 233, n. 7. It is interesting to notice 
that parliamentary forms are still followed rather strictly, even in 
the manner of voting, of requiring a quorum, and of appointing 
a committee to draft the motion. 



(i3 9 p.Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, c. 28; Lafoscade, 108. 

'Em ttp%*epeo9 'Ia<roi^[o9 T]OI) 
tea, [KojO^/;\]to9 Ilpo/cXo?, | Trpea- 
fcpdropos, TOOL tcot,v[a)i, AVKLWV %aipi]v. Kal | Trapwv <l[yvct)fca, 
ore a<? /Jiera 7r\icrrij^ (?)] || <77rou8>;[9 Trpjo? ^Q'jrpap.oav ['ATroX- 5 
St9 TO[U] K.a\\id8ov KOI o[re dvre 

[ 419 ] 


entity i(ra<T0, ravras vvv fcal rjvifca \ e^eo"nv aTrobovvai ftov\ecr6e t 

10 TOVTO o'vvfywpria'avTOS rov fjieyicrrov Travrcw avroUfcpdropos, $9 

HavOLoi^ dvijtce ryv eVt/cX??0w j rr)v dvn/cpvs TOVTCOV 

Kal e/Jiol | Se So/eel tcai 'OTrpajmoas irdvTtov evetcev ajfto? 

velcrdai, /cat reij^aadaL 717)09 v/tidiz/, | Kol <^XoTt//,o9 c5i/ KOI 



OTI acr\ ....... (septem versus maxime mutili; in fine:) 

L [upas /3o]v\o\[/u,ai. 'ESjo^?; TT/OO la /ca(\avS)v) 
l3p\ji(t)v\ | ev Hardpot,?. 

See note on no. 80. In A.D. 137 the governor had vetoed the 
proposal of the provincial assembly to confer unusual honors on 
Opramoas (Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, c. 24, 26). In the following 
year (c. 26) the Xanthians appealed to the emperor, and the pro- 
vincial assembly supported their action by passing a decree and 
sending an embassy to Rome. From the document which we have 
printed above, we learn that the emperor reversed the action of 
the governor in 137, and instructed the present governor to inform 
the assembly of his consent to grant the desired honors. 


(ca. 138-139 p. Chr.) 
Lafoscade, 94. 

KOI p,aov eTTLercvvae rrjv 
5 7T/)[o9 Toy] | }Jiyi(TTov avTOfcp[d]ropa rjjjLwv [AJtXftoi/] || 'Az/- 
Toweivov 2[e/3]aerToz/ ev[o~6/Setai/ | Trd&rji, re (?) yv]a)/j,r)t T7/9 

fcal vvv ^rj^io-d^evoi ev \ 
l aia)v[iot$] | avTO\y<yev]d\laiS rj/Jie 
10 fcal 6ea$ fj[fipS>v~\ || Trevre tTnreKeiv /cal 

rS>v /ca\ov/j,eva)v 6^9 Ta9 | Ovcrias /cdcrr(i)i Srjvdpiov 
ovai. Kat | raura /j,ev vpelv op6&<; real Kakcos coaTrep \ e(l) 

An edict of Trajan had forbidden donationes from the municipal 
treasury to citizens (Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. no), but in this document 

T 4.20 1 


from Ephesus we see that, in the age of the Antonines, the town 
council proposed a distribution of a denarius to each citizen present 
at the sacrifices in honor of the emperor on his birthday, if his name 
was on the roll of invited guests. Endowments for such distributions 
were common in antiquity (Laum, Stiftungen^ I, 103^*.-, cf. nos. 
69, 71), but we seldom find record of a direct distribution of 
municipal funds as proposed at Ephesus. The approval of the 
governor was required, and we infer from his answer that he had 
the right to propose legislation in the municipal council, at least 
in matters dealing with the finances of the city. 


(140 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, c. 34; Lafoscade, no. 

TIp6fc\o<;, | Trpeo-fievrqs d^rt\o-Tpdrrjyo^ av[ro- 

j|Xeu'aH [MJiy>eft>i/ ypafjL^a\rel 5 

TOV aiov, TOV\TOIS /caya) 10 

TOVTOV | Trpoaayopeveadcu \ (Tvv%a)pa), et yitr; rovr 
vavriov *; ro?9 || vopow r] rot? edea[i]v \ [rot? Trajp' v/jLe[i]v. 15 
cr ^v^ofjuai. \\vaye\jpa7rrai eVt d 

Cf. no. 80. The city of Myra proposed to confer certain honors 
on Opramoas, but first asked the provincial legate if he would 
sanction their decree. He replied that the city could do so, if their 
act was not contrary to their laws or customs. In submitting their 
proposal to the legate, the municipal authorities were probably 
animated by motives of vanity, but in this way they invited the 
interference of the imperial authorities in local affairs (cf. nos. 71, 
114). To some extent the powers of cities were limited by the 
laws of the commissioners or governor in organizing the province. 
Edicts were also issued by various emperors regulating the internal 
affairs of the municipalities. For example, Trajan issued an edict 
forbidding the payment of money from municipal treasuries to 
private individuals as gifts (Pliny, Epp. ad Trai no). Treaties 
made between Rome and various cities also contained clauses which 


gave Romans special privileges and apparently restricted the freedom 
of the city in giving similar rights to other aliens (cf. 1G. vn, 2O 
(Tanagra) [SeSocrOai] . . fcal r[a\X]a 7rai/r[a] . . . [TT\TJV el' TWO, 

777)09] 'Pcofjictiovs: Dio Chrys. 41, 1C; cf. no. 19). 

(140-144 p. Chr.) 

Lafoscade, 515 Ditt. Sy//* 849. 

) 0eov f A.B]piavov \ v /09, 6eo[v Tpaiavov 
5 a^o9 | y Avra)velv[o<; % 

clover ias TO. ., avTo/cpdrcop TO /3'], {5?raT09 | TO y' , Trarrjp 
09, 'E<ecr/fc>y TJot9 \apyov<T(, KOI rf)i] /3ov\f)t, 

O69 eya> 
10 T TTO\IV TI> vereav a7r6?;^ai77J/. /maL 8e fcal 

ravra ev T&> Trept T7/9 
t,, rov \OLTTOV Se e/co 

eav /cat vfies ev To9 7rpo9 avrovs ypd/jL/jLaaiv bv 
15 rpOTrov teal /ee/cpmu T?79 7roXco9 avrwv 

To *\]nj<f)Lor/Jia eTrefj^rev %ov\7ri/cio$ 'Ioi;[Xta]i/o[9 7rlT~\po7r6s JJLOV. 
EuTt%6tT6. 1 [To] 8e Tjnj<f)icriJLa eiroirjaev ypa/JLfjLarevayv Ho. 

From Ephesus. This letter illustrates the rivalry between Greek 
cities in Asia Minor for preeminence which was characteristic at 
this period (Cassius Dio, 52. 37. 10; Dio Chrys. 34. 48). The 
emperor had determined the proper rank and titles for the three 
cities, Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamum. Neither Smyrna nor 
Ephesus accepted his decision, and in their communications to each 
other had neglected to use the proper titles of honor. The Ephesians 
complained to the emperor, and in his reply he attempts to allay 
their wrath with a mild rebuke, suggesting that they also use the 
proper titles of honor in addressing Smyrna. This dispute raged 
again some years later, and was once more referred to the emperor 
(Aristides, jrepl ofiovoia^ Ta?9 TroXeow; cf. Chapot, La prov. rom 
proc. d'Asie^ 144/5 Ditt. Syll* 849, n. 2). 

T J.22 1 



(145 P. Chr.) 

Lafoscade, 54; Ditt. Syll? 850; I.B.M. 3, 491. 
[Avrofcpdra)]p Ka?<r[a]/?, 0e[ov f A8]pi,[avo~\v | [1^09, 6eov 
1ipai]avo[y Hap0]i,fco[v v/<w]yo9, | [0eov Nepova 

7/0-T09, 8*?]/AaHI[^]*[% e^oucrta?] TO ?/, a[vrofcpdr(op r]o /3', 5 
{J7ra[r]o9 [TO 8', 7ra]|T?;p 7r[arp/So9, 'E<eo~<r]e0i> TO?? [^]x^o"6 
/cat T[^] ftov\f) teal \ [TO> 8?;/>ta) X\aip^iv. T]^i/ (friXorifjbiav fjv 


/3ov\6fjL\\vos jap Trap' C/JLOV Ty^etz/ fiorjOeias [e69 TO]I/ Koa^ov 10 
epywv, wv V/JLLV eTnjvyeiXaro, e8?;X[rocrei/ oo*a KO]\ rj\i/ca 
Tpo(TTidr)criv rrj vroXfet, aXX' 6/x]et9 o[u/c] op|^a)9 
avrov fcdyo) KOI av[vX(t)pr](Ta a\vrG)[i ocr]|a yrij- 
crajfo], /cat dTrebe^d/Jirjv ore [ot'J TO/' [cruz;?;^?; rS)]v 7ro\\\CTvo- 15 
rpoTTOV, of rov [TT^pJ^Xp^fa e^^o/c^Jet^ %j[p]^ 6/9 
c]ai Biavofjbas fcal rd 
rrf\v </>t[\OT6/i]tar, d\\a SS ov 7rpo9 TO [/ie 

[KX. 'I 

From Ephesus. This letter reveals the undercurrents of municipal 
life at this period. Vcdius Antoninus had secured assistance from 
the emperor in building the Odeum at Ephesus, and had contributed 
generously from his own purse. The emperor rebukes the city for 
their lukewarmness in giving honor to Vedius because he had 
spent his wealth in an enduring monument instead of giving games 
or distributing doles to the citizens. (Cf. Hicks, LB.M. 3, 492, 



(150 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 739, c. 45; Lafoscade, 1 14. 

rov e6vov<$ /3ov\rj 7T6y9o?;craTO TO 
&t,[a r y]pa\<f>>)vai, virep 'OTrpa/xoa 'ATToXXam'oi; ?rpo9 TOI/ pe 

[ 423 ] 

av[r}o\Kpdropa y Svva<rai, iroielv o /3ov\ovrat. ^pp&o-OaL ere 

Cf. no. 80. The provincial assembly of Lycia requests permission 
of the governor to send a copy of an honorary decree to the emperor. 
The lyciarch is given authority to carry out the wish of the assembly. 


(152 p. Chr.) 
An. ep. 1904, no. 21. 

Imp. Caesar \ T. Aelius Hadrianus \ Antoninus Aug. Pius \ pent. 

5 max. fr/ | |/ciapo testate xvcos. mi | viam per Alpiis | Numidicas, 

10 ve|tustate inter |ruptam, ponti||ius denuo fac|to, paludibus | sic- 

15 catis, labibus | confirmatis, | restituit, || curante M. Valerio | 

Etrusco leg. suo | pr. pr. 

For similar inscriptions, cf. nos. 31 and 72. 


(140-1 55 p. Chr.) 

IG. vii, 2870. 
I ....... Si^iccuov, 07TOT6 v/j,el$ OVK [e^jrelOecrOe rots KpiOelaw, 

a\\a elarjieiTe 6t9 Trjv eicelvatv %^p[^], | fcaiceivovs (e)69 TO /j,rj 
7rep[i]opdv v/jias veiMOVTas Tpe7re<r#eu. Hocroz/ Be CCTTIV TO 6<f>i- 
Xo/i[e]|i/oi/ reXo9 rj riva ei(T\v a Kare(r)(r}Ka<Tiv V/JLWV Kopcovels 

5 V6%Vpa, pi<TT()VV/J,0$ 

II AvTOtcpdrayp Kalaap, deov * ASpiavov vlo$ y 0ov Tpaiavov 
vlcovos, Oeov 

TO 7', VTraros 7', Trarrjp TrarpiSos, Kopcoveoov To?9 
KOL rf)c j3ov\f]i Kal TOH 8^|//,ft)6 %aipiv. Kal rov Oeov 
/JLOV S(,/caia)<> /J,jjbvrj/Jivot, Kal rrfs e^6^9 apxn^ Kar ^ TO 7rpocrr)/cov \\ 
5 7rr)t,(Tdr}iut,voi, /cal vjrep rov vlov /JLOV irpodv^M^ crwrj^o^evoi nrpe- 
Trovra f/ E\X?7cr6i/ dv0pa)7rot,s 7rot,ei\T. 'ETrpecr/Sevev ^^rjrpio^ 
y (Si TO efybbiov SO^T/TO), el /i^ Trpolica VTT60"%TO. EUTU- 

III AvTO/cpaTcop Ka?(rap, Oeov * A$[pi\avov u/09, Oeov Tpaiavov 
HapOifcov vlwvoSy Oeov Ne/ooua 6/^701/09, T/jro? A?Xto9 'ASpiavb? 

[ 424 1 


a9 TO ir)' 9 avro\tcpdra)p TO /3', vTraros TO 8', Trarrjp irarplSos, 
rol$ ap^ovGL teal rfjc /3ov\rjt /cal TOH &ijfi<oi %ai\piv. 
oirjcrd/JUjv /juera^v V/JLWV KOI icr/3ea)v 
a, \\7T6crTt,\a 8e teal Me<7T/Dt6H 'A/>6- 5 
iJL<ti(> a7ro/jLTpfjcrat ra 7r\e0pa I<T (Sever tv, a 


7TtVJJ,OLV 7T6t^O^T9 V/Xa9, | 8(*><TOV<n,V fJLGV VO 

Se KOI aTrobtocriv, ocrov av vTrep rov ^povov rov 

ipou, [ofc TO] <f>68iov 8o^r;TO), 6 fir) Trpol/ca 

From Coronea. The people of Thisbe had been encroaching on 
the territory of Coronea. The dispute had been referred to Hadrian 
and a decision rendered, but the aggressions continued. Antoninus 
appointed Aristonymus to survey the land, ordering both Thisbans 
and Coroneans to pay the taxes to the respective cities to which 
the disputed lands might be awarded. 


(ca. 160 p. Chr.) 

I.B.Af. 482; CIG. 2954; Ditt. Syll* 867. 

[. .Tlo^TriXXiosKaposltle&col^v] \ avdviraTos \eyei. \ [*R] 
rov Tre/jitfrOevTos [e/9 e ? ]|/xe y]rr)<f>i(rfjLaro$ VTTO rijs \a/jL 

TT/OO /t[oO] | Kparicrrov? 
rj/iepa? rfjs [7ra]vrj[yvpc0$ \ 

l rovro &iard\yfjLart Se8r;Xft)/ct'i/a6 oOev dvayfcai\\ov 10 
fcal auT09 tt7TO/3X6|7Tft)i/ el? T rfjv evaspeiav rfjs 6eov \ 
l 6/9 rr)V rfjs \afnr pordrij? 'E^>6|crt'a>!/ 7roXeft>9 reifir]v fyavepov 
7TOL\rjaai Siardy/Jiart, ecrecrdai ra$ fjfiepas \\ ravras iepas teal ra$ 15 
eV avrals e^|%6^ta9 ^vXa^dyjo-eadai' Trpocrra)\ro^ rfjs rcawr)- 
<yupea>9 | T/TOU A.l\iov Maptciavov Tlpi&icov \ rov dycovoderovy 
vov Al\iov || llpio-fcov, dvSpos S otci /AWT drov teal \ Trd&r)? reifif)<; 20 
teal dTroSoxtfs d%lov. 


From Ephesus. The governor of Asia had, apparently, given 
offence to the citizens of this city by transacting public business 
possibly holding court on days sacred to Diana. The Ephesians 
lodged a protest, citing the edicts of former governors regarding 
their holy days. The second part of the inscription, omitted here, 
contains a decree of the city making the whole of the month 
Artemision sacred to the goddess. 


(138-160 p. Chr.) 

C1L. m, S. 7060; E.E. 3, 156; Dessau, 7190; Bruns, 62; 
Riccobono, p. 237. 

S.C. de />ostulatione Kyzicenor. ex Asia, | qui dicunt ut corpus 
quod appellatur ne|on et habent in civitate sua auctoritate | am- 

5 plisstmi 0rdinis confirmetur. cr\\\bendo adfuerunt M. Aelius imp. 
Titi Aeli j Hadriani Jtntonini f. Pap. Aurelius Ve|rj, . . . .s M. f. 
Gal. Verus, M. Hosidius | M. /. A. . .G^a, M. Annius M. f. 
Gal. Libo, Q. | Pompeius Q. f. Hor. Bassianus, L. Fl. L. f. || 

10 Quir. lulianus, L. Gellius L. f. Ter. Severus, | q(uaestores). Sen- 
tentia dicta ab Appio Gallo | cos. desig. relatione mi concedente | 
imp. Caes#r Tito .//elio Hadriano An\tonino Aug. Pio. . .1111 re- 

15 latione sua || .... Kyzicenos ex Asia | . . . .quos neos appellant. . . . 

A stone tablet found in 1876 on the site of Cyzicus, now in the 
British Museum. Cyzicus was a civitas liber a (cf. Chapot, La prov. 
rom. proc. (TAsie> 115) in the senatorial province of Asia. As 
Kornemann has shown (R.E. 4, 408 ff.}^ the imperial policy in 
the matter of associations was determined by the lex lulia of 
Augustus (cf. OIL. vi, 2193). Under this law only useful organiza- 
tions were allowed, and a new association must secure the consent 
of the senate and the approval of the emperor. Under the early 
empire the senate took action even on requests from cities in 
imperial provinces (cf. C1L. v, 7881), but gradually its competence 
was restricted to Italy and the senatorial provinces, as in this case, 
and in the course of time, even in senatorial provinces, the consent 
of the emperor was the determining factor. In the cities of the 
East particularly the central government was chary of allowing the 

[ 426 ] 


formation of clubs, because of their tendency to develop into political 
organizations (cf. Plin. Epp. ad Trai. 33, 34). On the danger 
attending the formation of corpora neon (= iuvenum), Mommsen 
cites Dig. 48. 19. 28, 3, from the third century, so/ent quidam y 
qui vo/go se iuvenes appellant, in quibusdam civitatibus turbulentis 
se adclamationibus popularium accommodare. The emperor had the 
right to present the first four motions at a meeting of the senate, 
but in this case he conceded his right to the fourth motion (cf. 1. 12) 
to the consul designates (cf. Mommsen, St. R. 2, 898, n. 4). The 
words sententia dicta show that the stone gives an extract from the 
Acta Senatus rather than the S.C. itself. After II B.C. the Acta 
Senatus were in charge of the quaestors. 

(138-161 p. Chr.) 

C1L. xn, 594; Dessau, 6988. 

Pagani pagi Lucreti,qui sunt fini|bus Arelatensium loco Gargario, 
Q. Cor. | Marcelli lib. Zosimo nuiivir Aug. col. lul. | Paterna 
Arelate ob honorem eius, qui notum (sic) fecit || iniuriam nostram 5 
omnium saec#/0rum sacra|tissimo principi T Aelio Antonino Pio> 
. . r Romae | misit per multos annos ad praesides provincial per- 
se|cutus est iniuriam nostram suis inpendiis et ob hoc | donavit nobis 
inpendia quae fecit, ut omnium saecu||lorum sacratissimi principis 10 
imp. Caes. Antonini Aug. Pii | beneficia durarent permanerentque 
quibus frueremur | . . . .et balineo gratuito quod ablatum erat 
paganis | pagi Lucreti^ quod usi fuerant amplius annis xxxx. 

Found at St Jean de Garguier near Massilia. The pagus Lucretius 
was an oppidum attributum^ which had probably been taken from 
Massilia and given to Arelate, because of the resistance which 
Massilia offered to Caesar in 49 B.C., cf. Marquardt, St. Verw. I, 
263 /.; Herzog, Gallia Narbonensis 9 171 and no. 358. On oppida 
attributa and their disputes with their suzerain states, cf. nos. 10 
and 49; pp. lo^l, 138^ In 11. 6-7 Hirschfeld would rzzA patienter 
Romae mansit. 

[ 427 ] 



(138-161 p. Chr.) 

IG. xn, 7, 242; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1010. 

[Meivcovjr&v rr\i /8of]|X^ /ecu [ran brffjicoi, %ai/oe^] ..... | 

5 TroXXwi/ ........ [rrjv vfierepav Tro]|Xv KOI yhp a ..... \\cov 

v)[$ ..... Trpo9 TOP r Pft>]|yiuua>y Bfjfjiov ........ | Se 7-779 

TOV ....... I evvolas y /taX^crra [Se Trpbs rov Trarepa 

y 09 

Trap' ty4e[?z/ TroXXw^ ....... a^a^ai^] | Aral (f)i\av6p(07rcov 

.......... |ra f oOev KOI TCOL Tfrrjtyi&^aTi, rwt, v^erepcoi eVe]|- 

TV)(OV 77866)9, 
15 'A^o^:z/o[f] 

\ev~\\0plav KCU avrovo^i\av real areXe^a^, fcaOcos] \ irapa 

er. . . . 

From Minoa in the island Amorgus. The emperor, presumably 
Antoninus Pius, ratifies the gift of freedom, independence, and 
immunity, which the city had received from former emperors. 
The visit of Hadrian to the islands in the Aegean was made in 
123 (Weber, Unters. Gesch. Hadr. 142^.)- Cf. nos. 40, 75. 


(168-172 p. Chr.) 

OIL. ix, 2438; Bruns, *jib\ Riccobono, p. 260. 

(1) Bassaeus Rufus et Macrinms Vindex mag|(istratibus) 

Saepinat(ibus) salutem. | 

Exemplum epistulae scriptae nobis a Cosmo Aug(usti) lib(erto) | 
5 a rationibus cum his quae iuncta erant subiecimus, et admonem||us 
abstineatis iniuris faciendis conductoribus gregum oviarico|rum cum 
magna fisci iniuria, ne necesse sit recognosci de hoc | et in factum, 
si ita res fuerit, vindicari. | 

(2) Cosmi Aug(usti) lib(erti) a rationibus scriptae ad Basseum 
Rufum et ad | Macrinmm Vindic(em) pr(aefectos) pr(aetorio) 

10 e(minentissimos) v(iros). Exemplum epistul(ae) scriptae mihi || a 
Septimiano colliberto et adiutore meo subieci, et peto tanti | faciatis 

[ 428 j 


scribere mag(istratibus) Saepin(atibus) et Bovian(ensibus), uti de- 
sinant iniuriam | conductoribus gregum oviaricorum qui sunt sub 
cura mea facere, | ut bew^ficio vestro ratio fisci indemnis sit. 

(3) Script(ae) a Septimiano ad Co|smum. Cum conductores 
gregum oviaricorum, qui sunt sub cura tua, in re presenti || subinde 15 
mihi quererentur per itinera callium frequenter iniuriaw | se accipere 
a stationaris et mag(istratibus) Saepino et Boviano eo, quod in 
tra/zsitu | iumenta et pastores, quos conductos habent retineant di- 
centes fugitives esse et | iumenta abactia habere et sub hac specie 
oves quoque dominicae | sibi pereant in illo tumultu: necesse habe- 
iamus etiam et etiam scribere, quietius ag||erent, ne res dominica 20 
detrimentum pateretur; et cum in eadem contumacia | perseverent, 
dicentes non curaturos se neque meas litteras neque si tu eis | 
scrips^r/V ha\\\. fieri re;w, rogo, doming si tibi videbitur, indices 
Basseo Rufo | et Macrin/o Vindici pr(aefectis) pr(aetorio) e(mi- 
nentissimis) v(iris), ut epistulas emittant ad eosdem mag(istratus) 
et stati|onarios /andiu temere (?) /rritum (?) factum est. 

Found on a stone at Saepinum. The cursus honor um of M. Bas- 
saeus Rufus is given in CIL. vi, 1599 ( rz= Dessau, 1326). He was 
probably prefect of Egypt from 166 to 168 (cf. v. Rohden in R.E. 
3, IO3/. ; Meyer, Hermes^ 32 (1897), 226). Subsequently he was 
made praetorian prefect. M. Macrinius Vindex was killed in 172 
probably (cf. Prosop. 2, p. 313). Their joint incumbency of the 
praetorian prefecture therefore probably fell between 168 and 172. 
The situation which calls forth this letter is clear. The officials 
of Saepinum and Bovianum have illtreated the keepers of the 
imperial herds and wrongfully taken some of their animals. The 
attention of Cosmus, a rationibus^ is called to this state of things 
by his adiutor, Septimianus, in a letter (11. 10-24). Cosmus sends 
this letter with a brief superscription of his own (11. 8-10) to the 
praetorian prefects, who in turn prefix a warning (11. 17) to the 
document and send it to the magistrates of Saepinum. Our interest 
in the document lies primarily in the fact that it deals with a quarrel 
between municipal magistrates and imperial employees, and shows 
how such a difficulty was settled. The prefects take the action which 
they do in this case not as fiscal officers, but as officials charged with 
the maintenance of order in Italy, and this is one of the earliest 

[ 429 ] 


known instances of the exercise by the praetorian prefect of this 
function; cf. Mommsen, St. R. 2, 969, 1120. 

The stationarii (1. 1 6) are in this case of course members, not of 
the imperial, but of the municipal police force; cf. Lecrivain, Diet. 
Dar. 4, 1469. For the functions of the scrinium a rationibus, cf. 
pp. 240 ff. For its organization, cf. Hirschfeld, 31 ff. On the 
imperial domains, cf. pp. 1 7 ff. 



(176-177 p. Chr.) 

OIL. ii, S. 6278; Dessau, 5163; Bruns, 63; Riccobono, p. 238. 

tantam illam pestem nulla medicina sanari posse. Nee 

poterat: verum nostri principes quibus omne studium est quanto 
lijbet morbo salutem publicam mersam et enectam refovere et 
integrae valuetudini reddere, in primis anima adverterunt quae | 
causa illi morbo vires daret, unde foeda et inlicita vectigalia ius 
haberent, quis auctor et patronus esset usurpandis quasi | legitimis, 
quae omnibus legibus et divinis et humanis prohibentur. || 

5 Fiscus dicebatur: fiscus non sibi, set qui lanienae aliorum prae- 
texeretur, tertia vel quarta parte ad licentiam foedae rapinae invijta- 
tus. Itaque fiscum removerunt a tota harena. Quid enim Marci 
Antonini et Luci Commodi cavendum fisco cum hare|na? Omnis 
pecunia horum principum/>ura est, nulla cruoris humani adspergine 
contaminata, nullis sordibus foedi quae|stus inquinata, et quae tarn 
sanctae paratur quam insumitur. Itaque facessat sive illut ducen- 
tiens annuzmi seu trecenties | est; satis amplum patn;w0nium imperio 
paratu ex parsimonia vestra. Quin etiam ex reliquis lanistarum, quae 

10 (sestertium) quingenties su||pra sunt, pars lanistis condonetur. Ob 
quae, oro vos, merita? Nulla sane, inquiunt, merita, set prohibiti 
talibus grassaturis solajcium ferant et in posterum tanto pretio in- 
vitentur ad opsequium humanitatis. | 

O magni impp., qui scitis altius fundari remedia, quae etiam malis 
consulunt, qui se etiam necessaries fecerint! Et iam fructus tan|tae 
vestrae providentiae emerg/'t. Legebatur etiam nunc apud nos 
oratio; sed ubi rumore delatuw *st questus lanistarum recisos, fis|cum 

[ 430 ] 


omnem illam pecuniam quasi contaminatam reliquisse, statim sacer- 
dotes fidelissimarum Galliarum vestrarum || concursare, gaudere, 15 
inter se loqui. | 

Erat aliquis, qui deploraverat fortunas suas creatus sacerdos, qui 
auxilium sibi in provocatione ad principes facta constituerat. Sed | 
ibidem ipse primus et de consilio amicorum: quid mihi Jam cum 
appellatione ? Omne onus, quod patrimonium meum opprimebat, 
sanc|tissimi impp. remiserunt; Jam sacerdos esse et cupio et opto 
et, editionem muneris quam olim detestabamur, amplector. | 

Itaque gratiae appellationis non solum ab illo, verum et a ceteris 
petitae; et quanto plures petentur! lam hoc genus causarum di- 
versam formam || habebit, ut appellet qui non sunt creati sacerdotes, 20 
immo populus. | 

Quae igitur tantis tarn salutarium rerum consilis vestris alia 
prima esse sententia potest, quam ut, quod singuli sentiunt, quod 
universi | de pectore intimo claman/, ego censeam? | 

Censeo igitur in primis agendas maximis impp. gratias, qui salu- 
taribus remedis, fisci ratione post habita, labentem civitatium statum 
et prae|cipitantes iam in ruinas principalium virorum fortunax 
restituerunt: tanto quidem magnificentius, quod, cum excusatum 
esset reti||nerent quae ali instituissent et quae longa consuetudo con- 25 
firmasset, tamen olli peraeque nequaquam sectae suae congruere 
arbitraj ti sunt male instituta servare et quae turpiter servanda essent 
instituer^. | 

Quamquam autem non nulli arbitrentur de omnibus, quae ad 
nos maximi principes rettulerunt, una et succincta sententia cen- 
sendum, | tamen, si vos probatis, singula specialiter persequar, verbis 
ipsis ex oratione sanctissima ad lucem sententiae translatis, ne qua 
ex parte pravis in|terpretationibus sit locus. 

Itaque censeo, uti munera, quae assiforana appellantur, in sua 
forma mane^nt nee egrediantur sump||tu (sestertium) xxx (milia). 30 
Qui autem supra (sestertium) xxx (milia) ad LX (milia) usque munus 
edent, is gladiatores tripertito praebeantur numero pan*. Summum 
pre|tium sit (v. 3134 sequuntur pretta gladiatoruni). 

Et haec sit summo ac formonso gladiatori defi||nita quantitas. 35 
Utique in omnibus muneribus quae generatim distincta sunt, lanista 
dimidiam copiam universi numeri promisque multitu|dinis praebeat 

[ 431 ] 


exque his qui gregari appellantur, qui melior /acertatas erit duobus 
milibus sub signo pugnet, nee quisquam ex eo numero | mille 
nummum minore. Lanistas etiam promo vendos vili studio questus: 
sibi copiam dimidiae partis praebenda* negantes esse ex nu|mero 
gregariorum uti sciant inpositam sibi necessitatem de ceteris quos 
meliores opinabuntur transferre tantisper plendi nu|meri grega- 
riorum gratia. Itaque is numerus universae familiae aequis partibus 

40 in singulos dies dispartiatur, w^que ullo die minus quam || dimidia 
pars gregariorum sit ibi eo die dimicabunt. Utque ea opservat/o 
a lanistis quam diligentissime exigatur, iniungendum | his qui pro- 
vinciae praesidebunt et legatis vel quaestoribus vel legatis legionum 
vel iis qui ius dicunt c(larissimis) v(iris) aut procurator/^ maxi- 
morum | principum quibus provinciae rector mandaverit; is etiam 
procurator/^ qui provinciis praesidebunt. Trans Padum autem 
perque omnes Italiae | regiones arbitrium iniungendum praefectis 
alimentorum <dandis>, si aderunt, vel viae curatori aut, si nee is 
praesens erit, iuridico vel | turn classis praetoriae praefecto. || 

45 Item censeo de exceptis ita opservandum, ut praecipuum mer- 
cedes gladiator sibi quisque paciscatur, eius pecuniae quae ob hanc 
causam excipi|ebatur, quartam portionem liber, serous autem quin- 
tam excipiat. De pretis autem gladiatorum opservari paulo ante 
censui secundum praescrip|tum divinae orationis, sed ut ea pretia 
ad eas civitates pertinea^t, in quibus ampliora gladiatorum pretia 
flagrabant. Quod si quibus civitatibus | res publica tenuior est, non 
eadem serventur quae aput fortiores civitates scripta sunt, nee supra 
modum virium onerent, sed hactenus in eundem, | ut qu#e in 
publicis privatisque rationibus repperientur pretia summa ac media 
ac postrema, si quidem provinciarum eae civitates sunt, ab eo || 

50 qui praesidebit provinciae opserventur, ceterarum autem iuridico 
vel curatori provinciae vel classis praetoriae praefecto vel procura- 
tori | maxumorum principum, uti cuiusque civitatis potestasque ibi 
prima erit. Atque ita rationibus decem retroversum annorum in- 
spectis, exemplis | munerum in quaque civitate editorum conside- 
ratis, conserventur ab eo cuius arbitrium erit de tribus pretis: vel si 
melius ei videbitur | ex eo modo quern persequitur efficirft et tri- 
fariam pretia deducantur eaque forma etiam in posterum servetur. 
Sciantque v(iri) c(larissimi) 5 qui proconjsules paulo ante profecti 

[ 432 ] 


sunt, intra suum quisque annum it negotium exsequi se oportebit, 
ii etiam, qui non sortito provincias || regant, intra annum. | 55 

Ad Galliam sed et princeps , qui in civitatibus splendi- 

dissimarum Galliarum veteri more et sacro ritu expectantur, ne 
ampliore pretio | lanistae praebeant, quam binis milibus. Cum 
maximi principes oratione sua praedixerint fore, ut damnatum ad 

gladium | procurator eorum nisi plure quam sex aureis 

et nisi iuraverit. | 

Sacerdotes quoque provinciarum quibus nulluw cum lanistis 
negotium erity gladiatores a prioribus sacerdotibus sus||ceptos vel 60 
sibimet auctoratos recipiunt, at post edititfnew eodtm pretio in suc- 
cedentes traw/t/unt; neque singulatim aliquem | rei gladiatoriae 
causa vendat plure quam lanistis est pretium persolutum. | 

Is autem qui aput tribunum plebei c(larissimum) v(irum) sponte 
ad dimicandum profitebitur, cum habeat ex lege pretium duo milia, 
liberatus si discri|men instauraverit, aestimatio eius post hac (sester- 
tium) xn (milia) non excedat. Is quoque qui senior atque inabilior 
operam suam denuo 

1. 50. provinciae; viae, Hirschfeld. 
1. 54. oportebit \\for oportere eos. 
1. 56. ad Galliam. . .civitatibus; ad Gallicas editiones quae in civitatibus, 

1. 58. after procurator eorum some words have been lost. 

At several points in this inscription, indicated by italics, emendations 
of scholars have been admitted into the text. Mere orthographical or gram- 
matical errors which do not obscure the sense have usually been allowed to 

A bronze tablet, found in 1888 near Italica in Baetica, now in 
Madrid. Commodus was named imperator in Nov. 176. He was 
therefore the colleague of M. Aurelius until the latter' s death in 
1 80. The inscription consequently falls between these dates (cf. 
1. 6), but since M. Aurelius was absent from Rome on a campaign 
against the Marcomanni from 178 to 180, this document probably 
falls in the year 1 76 or 177. 

The plays and games which were given annually in all the prin- 
cipal towns of the empire and the yearly games at the meetings of 
the concilia (cf. no. 1 55) constituted a heavy charge on the municipal 
budget. At Urso in Spain in the first century B.C., each duovir and 

AMA [ 433 ] *s 


aedile was called on to contribute at least 2000 sesterces, and the 
city added from the public treasury 2OOO for each duovir and 1000 
for each aedile (cf. no. 26, chapp. 70-71). Pliny's letters to Trajan 
refer frequently to the large sums which were being spent by the 
cities in his province on theatres, amphitheatres, and baths (cf. 
Epp. 23, 39). The gifts and bequests made by private citizens (cf. 
Liebenam, St. Verw. 1 18, n. 7; 1 19, n. i) added materially to the 
sums spent each year. Some records of the cost of these entertain- 
ments are given by Guiraud, Les assemblies prov. 1 30. The central 
government was aware of the heavy financial burden which these 
festivals laid on the municipalities, and Cassius Dio (52. 30) makes 
Maecenas advise Augustus to forbid them outside of Rome, but 
this document contains the earliest formal action looking to economy 
in such matters of which we have any record. How serious the 
matter has become is indicated by 11. 23-24, labentem civitatium 
statum et praectptt antes iam in ruinas prlnctpalium virorum fortunas. 
The subject is brought before the senate in the form of an oratlo 
prtncipum (cf. 11. 13, 28, 47, 57). This would probably be read by 
the quaestor, and immediately put to vote by the presiding officer 
(cf. Mommsen, St. R. 2, 899; Abbott, 350). The speech which 
Claudius made in a similar way de iure honorum Gallis dando has 
come down to us (cf. no. 50 and Tac. Ann. 1 1. 2425). This in- 
scription contains a speech made by a senator sometime after the 
reading of the oratlo principum (cf. ubi rumore delatum est, 1. 13). 
The proposal of M. Aurelius and Commodus, like the speech of 
Claudius, and like the messages of the President of the United 
States, was probably cast in the form of a general recommendation. 
One of the senators, on the basis of this recommendation, proceeds 
to formulate a bill. His motion, following the preamble (11. 1-22), 
consists of two parts: (i) a vote of thanks to the emperors (11. 23-29), 
and (2) certain articles limiting the amount of money which may 
be spent on gladiatorial contests (11. 29-63). The provisions of the 
measure are to be enforced by imperial officials (11. 4144, 5055). 
On these officials, cf. Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 8, 509-511. To make 
the new arrangement easier for those who give the games, the 
emperors have already provided for the remission of the tax paid 

to the fiscus of one-third or one-fourth of the gains made by the 

[ 434 ] 


lanistae (cf. 11. 5-6). The sum of 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 sesterces 
which the senator estimates (cf. 1, 8) will be lost annually by the 
fiscuS) in consequence of the remission of this tax, gives us some 
conception of the large amounts spent on these games. To the 
sacerdotes Romae et Augusti, upon whom fell the duty of arranging 
the games held at the annual meeting of the concilium^ the imperial 
proposal appealed very strongly (cf. 11. 13-20). It is interesting to 
notice incidentally that M. Aurelius had apparently urged in support 
of the imperial measure the inhumanity of the gladiatorial contests 
(cf, 11. 3-8). On the salaries to be paid the gladiators, cf. Mommsen, 
Ges. Schr. 8, 521-531. 

(180-183 P- Chr.) 

CIL. vin, 10570; cf. S. 14464; Dessau, 6870; Bruns, 86; 
Girard, p. 199; Riccobono, p. 361. 

intellegis praevaricationem quam non mod0 cum Allio Col. n 

Maximo adv^r|sario nostro, set cum omnibus fere 0#|ductoribus 
contra fas atq. in perniciem | rationurn tuarum sine modo exercuit, || 
ut non solum cognoscere per tot retro | annos instantibus ac supli- 5 
cantib^j | vestramq. divinam subscriptionem | adlegantibus nobis 
supersederit, ve|rum etiam hoc eiusdem Alii Maximi || ronductoris 10 
artibus gratiosissimi | ultimo indulserit, ut missis militib. | in ^undem 
saltum Burunitanum ali|0j nostrum adprehendi et vexari, ali|0j 
vinciri) nonullos, cives etiam Ro\\manos y virgis et fustibus effligi 15 
iusse|r/V, scilicet eo solo merito nostro, qu|0rf venientes in tarn gravi 
pro modulo me\diocritat\s nostrae tamq. manifesta | iniuria im- 
ploratum maiestatem t\\\\am acerbiore epistula usi fuissemus. Cu\ius 20 
nostrae /muriae evidentia, Caes., | inde profecto potest aestimari, 

(\\i\od quidem, quern maiesta|/ f^rsistimamus vel pro || 

t omnino cognos | plane gratificati | 25 

mum invenerit | nostris, quibus | 

. . .bamus cogni || beret inte| praestzre operas | 30 

ret ita tot re\tro t tu . . . . (deficiunt quaedam). 

Quae res r^mpulit nos miserrimos homijw^ lam rwrsum divinae Col. in 
providentiae | tuae j/>/icare, et ideo rogamus, sa|cratissime imp., 

[ 435 ] *8-z 


5 subvenias. Ut kapite le||gis Hadriane, quod supra scriptum est, 

ad|emptum est, ademptum sit ius etiam proccb., | nedum conductor!, 

ad versus colonos amjpliandi partes agrarias aut operar. prae|bi- 

10 tionem iugorumve et ut se habent littere || procc. quae sunt in 

takdario tuo tractus Kar|thag., non amplius annuas quam binas | 

aratorias, binas sartorias, binas messo|rias operas debeamus, itq. sine 

15 ulla contro|versia sit, utpote cum in acre inciso et ab || omnib. 

omnino undiq. versum vicinis nost. | perpetua in hodiernum forma 

praSt//u|tum et procc. litteris quas supra scripsimus | ita conf/r- 

matum. Subvenias, et cum homi|nes rustici tenues man&um nos- 

20 trarum ope||ris victum tolerantes conductori profusis | largitionib. 

gratiosismo (sic} impares aput | procc. tuos simuj, quib. per vices 

succession, per condicionem conductionis notus est, | miser^r/s 

25 ac sacro rescripto tuo n. ampli||us praestare nos, quam ex lege 

Hadriana et | ex litteras procc. tuor. debemus,id est ter | binas operas, 

praecipere digneris, ut benejficio maiestatis tuae rustici tui vernulae | 

30 et alumni saltwum tuorum n. ultr. a conduc||torib. agror. fiscalium 

inquietemwr (deficiunt quaedani). 

Col. iv Imp. CWes. M. Aurelius Commodus An\toninus Aug. Sarmat. 

Germanicus | Maximus Lurio Lucullo et nomine a|liorum. Procc. 

5 contemplatione dis||cipulinae et instituti mei ne plus | quam ter 

binas operas curabunt, | ne quit per iniuriam contra perpe|tuam 

formam a vobis exigatur. | Et alia manu: scripsi. Recognovi. || 

10 Exemplum epistulae proc. e. v. | Tussanius Aristo et Chrysanthus | 

Andronico suo salutem. Secundum | sacram subscriptionem domini 

15 n. | sanctissimi imp., quam ad libellum || suum datam Lurius Lu- 

cullus acceplt (deficiunt versus sex) et ali\& manu: opfamus te 

feli|cissimum be# vivere. Vale. Dat. | pr. idus Sept. Karthagini. || 
25 Feliciter | consummata et dedicata | idibus M#is Aureliano et 
Corne|lian0 cos. Cura agente | C. lulio P^lope Salaputi, mag(istro). 
Engraved on a stone found in 1 879 at Souk-el-Khmis, the ancient 
saltus Burunitanus, in northern Africa. The inscription is in four 
columns. Of these the first is almost entirely lost; on the lower 
part of the second column, the lines are broken on the left side; 
the third and fourth columns are intact. Commodus took the title 
of Pius in 183. The inscription therefore falls between 180 and 
183. The most important commentaries on it and on related 

[ 436 ] 


subjects are those of Mommsen, Ges. Schr. 3, 153 ff.-> Esmein, 
M flanges d'hist. et du droit, 293 ff.\ Fernique and Cagnat, Rev. 
arch. 41 (1881), 94 /., 138 /.; Karlowa, I, 616, 6567., 924 /.; 
Fustel de Coulanges, Recherches sur quelques probltmes d'histoire, 
33ff-> Schulten, Die romischen Grundherrschaften; Beaudouin, Les 
grands domains dans f empire romain\ Schulten, Klio^ 7 (1907), 
I95/.; Hirschfeld, 122 jf.; Rostowzew > Gesch. d. rom. Kol. 332 jf. 
The inscription is made up of four parts: (i) the libellus of the 
coloni of the saltus Burunitanus (col. i, n, in); (2) the subscript 
of Commodus (iv, I ff.) ; (3) the epi stula procurators tractus Cartha- 
giniensis (iv, 10 jf), addressed to Andronicus, the procurator saltus 
Eurunitani\ (4) the date of publication and name of the communal 
official. Of the people mentioned in the document, Allius Maximus 
(n, 2) is a conductor^ Lurius Lucullus (iv, 2) represents the peti- 
tioners; Tussanius Aristo (iv, 1 1) is the procurator tractus Carth.\ 
Chrysanthus is his assistant; Andronicus (iv, 12) {^procurator saltus 
Eurunitani\ and Salaputis (iv, 29) the magister of the saltus, who 
probably superintends the construction of the altar on which the 
stone containing the inscription is cut. The tenants complain that 
the procurators have been unduly influenced and bribed by the 
contractors, that soldiers have been brought in, that they them- 
selves have been seized and punished, and that their annual con- 
tributions of produce and labor have been raised beyond the limits 
fixed in the lex Hadriana. Heitland (Agricola, 347) thinks that 
the phrase, alumni saltuum tuorum, implies that their holdings had 
descended to the present tenants from their fathers. 

Not far from the place where this inscription was found, and 
probably within the limits of the saltus Burunitanus, a fragment 
of another rescript of Commodus, addressed to Lurius Lucullus, has 
been discovered (GIL. vm, S. 14451). This document is also a 
reply to the complaints of the coloni. In another libellus (CIL. vm, 
S. 14428), addressed to the same emperor, the tenants on an im- 
perial domain complain of the wrongs done them, and refer to the 
fact that they are required to furnish twelve days' work each year. 
Apparently there was concerted action among the coloni in Africa 
under Commodus. For similar complaints from the Orient, cf. 
nos. 141 and 142. 

[ 437 ] 


For an imperial reply to a similar complaint from an imperial 
domain in Phrygia, cf. Bruns, 93. The appeal to the emperor in 
the document before us, probably through the procurator saltus 
(11, 20), was made by Lurius Lucullus, the representative of the 
tenants, and the emperor's rescript is addressed to Lucullus. A copy 
of it is sent to the procurator tractus, who communicates it to the 
procurator saltus (cf. quam. . .accepit, iv, 15). In their appeal the 
tenants rely on three documents, viz. the lex Hadrlana (in, 5), the 
litter ae procuratorum (in, 9 /.), and the perpetua forma (in, 16). 
For the first two documents, cf. no. 93 and p. 16. The forma 
perpetua is the lex Hadriana (cf. Rostowzew, op. cit. 332/.). The 
coloni have not yet been reduced to serfdom. Some of them are 
Roman citizens (n, I4/.)- For the history of the imperial domains, 
their political organization, and the decline in the status of the 
coloni y cf. pp. i6ff. For the form of an imperial subscript, cf. 
pp. 242^. The petition would go to the scrinium a libellis. 



(185-186 p. Chr.) 

Latyschev, 4, 81; GIL. in, S. 13750; Cagnat, IGRR. i, 860, 

E(xemplum) e(pistulae). Tiva eireo-reCka 'Are^'on 
[avooi teal a\\oi<; irepl rov iropvucov Te\~\ov$,v7roTaryf)vat, e/ce\V(ra 
TTpovo&v pyre v/JLa$ 7rapa ra SeSo^/iei/a 
rot>9 r)^lv vTTtjp'leTovvTas VTrepftalvew rov 
opov. E(xemplum) e(pistulae). || 

35 Ut scias quae sint officia militum agentium in vexillatione Cher- 
sonessitana de capitulo lenocini quod sub . | ....... , mist tibi exem- 

plum sententiae Arri Alcibiadis tune trib(uni) praepositi eiusdem 
vexi\la\tionis ...... us tarn intentionem eius quam manifeste de- 

terminatam partem ad ius \>er\tinentem ..... et quoniam idem Alci- 

biades videri non <po>potest sub tempus vent^rw(?) . | ...... recu- 

/>*randae vectigalis quantitatis sponte suscepisse, cum sententiam sub 

40 \\idi\\cit forma ....... pridem et dixerit et proposuerit et omnibus 

annis fisco pariaverit, dubium non est \ debere et circa vectigalis 

[ 438 ] 


quantitatem et circa discipulina(e) ratione(m) et observare et ob- 
tmere \ vo/o, eius sententtae exemplum aperta manu scriptum, unde 
de piano recte legi possit iuxta | ........ positum esse cura. 

E(xemplum) e(pistulae). Quid scripserim Atilio Primiano tribuno \ 
...... rio commilitionum, quod ad me<e> idem tribunus propter 

capitulum \eno\\cini ...... jecundum formam sententiae Arri Alci- 45 

biadis tune trib(uni) dictae om. . | ..... causas ne quid adversus 

discipulinam vel cum iniuria aut contumelia paganorum commit- 
tatur. | 

E(xemplum) e(pistulae). Quid ad decretum Chersonessitanorum 
rescripserim, co\gnoscetis ex Us quae ....... es subici praecipi, et 

rursum admoneo caveatis ne sub obtentu \i\\ius\modi inquisitionis 
milites ordmatam iam pridem placitam ac custoditam cum dispendio 
vestrae exsistima\\tionis ......... mquietent vel innovare quid 50 

temp tent. 

....... ] 7rl ap^ovrwv Ttov irepl M. Avp. Bacrj- 

From the Tauric Chersonesus. We have omitted the fragmentary 
beginning of this bilingual document (11. 1-31). The citizens of 
Chersonesus had appealed to the emperor Commodus in regard to 
the collection of the tax on prostitutes (11. 1 33 1 in the part omitted). 
This was an imperial tax first instituted by Gaius (Suet. Gat. 40), 
and collected by officers of the army. The evidence for this tax 
under the empire is collected by Domaszewski in editing the in- 
scription (CIL. in, S. 13750). Apparently there had been some 
dispute between the municipality and the officials who collected 
the tax. The emperor, in his letter to Primianus the chiliarch and 
Valerius Maximus the centurion, bids them to collect the tax without 
offence to the citizens and without exceeding the amount pre- 
scribed. For the exactions of the soldiery, cf. pp. 136^., and 
nos. 68, 139-144. 

[ 439 ] 



(185-186 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 1119; Ditt. Or. Gr. 609; Lafoscade, 117. 

5 'IouA,i09 m,a\rovpvlvo\s 3>aivr]ai\oi,$ /jLr)rpo\\/ccofJiiai, rov 
10 ' 

15 rj | KOI l$id>rri<$ t \ 7ri,crrL\av\r$ pou /c\\St,tcrj0i](Te<r\0ai,' ovre 

20 yap crvvi(r\(f)opav Ti\va o<e/Xe||Te T0?9 e'|z><H9, KOI 

25 e^oz/|r9 ov Sv\vacr0 dva\\vfcacr0f]\vai B^aar\0a 

30 rou9 | %evov<$. Ta{5||ra /AOV ra \ jpafji/nara \ ev 

The date of this inscription from Phaena in Syria is determined 
by Harrer (Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Syria, 40). 
The villagers complained to the governor that they had been com- 
pelled to furnish hospitium to soldiers and others, although there 
was an official hostel in their village. For similar complaints, cf. 
nos. 139, 141-144. 


(185-192 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 582; T.A.M. 2, 175. 

y rov 
Sd&pov, AeiW $', e/<777y?7<r[a]/zei/oi> roO ypafJb\^aTew^ rr}9 j 

ro\y 'Az/jSpo/Stoi;, eV^^^^era/iei/ou Se rou te 
'A\e^az/|8poi; roO Aucra)[i'09]. 'ETrel 
Kaipovs rov deiordrov Avrotcpdropos Ka/cra- 
e/Sacrroi) Eu<re/3o{)9 Evri;^oi)9, KCU 8ia rrjv rov 
fcpariarov \\ avOvirdrov Vaiov T[Q^TT^VLOV Ba[<r]<roi; Tepevnavov 
7Tpl ra9 7ro\6t9 av%r)(Ttv, KOI r] r)/ji6Tpa | 7roXt9 e^rj<f> icra TO 
(rvarijfia yepovnicov Kara rov vbfJiov, evvopov /3ov\f}$ /cai K\r)- 
yofie\vr)<; y e8of;V ypafyrjvat ^^(f>c(7/jLa rco fcparicrrco dvOv- 
Si ov Trapa/cXijO'fjvai /cat avrov avveTriicvptovai \ rrjv rijs 
Kal rov Stffjiov Kpiaw X 81 a rv^rj dyaOrj SeSo^^at 
rf/ ftovXrj teal r& ST/^G) | vvvyeypdfyOat, r68e TO 

[ 440 ] 


o fcal dvaboOrjvat, avr& VTTO rov d%t,o\oytordrov 
, 7TO\i\\rov f}ii$)Vy T*. KA. TTjAe/ia^oi; 5ai/[0]toi; KOI 10 

. Ta 

7rpo<r\r)/C(, TI KVpovcrOai, e^et yap TO fteftawly] a<fi eavrwv. 
/x9 v%o/j,ai. ^KOfJLicrdr) 67rl rov avrov \ 
/cy, eveypd<f>r) VTTO J&ve\0ovTo$ rov /cal 

TeAecr/ou 2t8uyL6O9 | yv/Avao-iapxija-avTos TT}? yepovarlas [TTJ^CO- 


From Sidyma in Lycia. The name of the emperor, erased in 
antiquity, was that of Commodus. He received the title of Felix 
in 185. The city of Sidyma had decreed the formation ofzgerusia, 
in accordance with the laws which regulated such association. This 
action was submitted to the provincial governor for approval and 
ratification. The proconsul replied that their action was more 
worthy of praise than of ratification; for worthy achievements 
carry their own confirmation. The phrase Kara rov vopov (1. 6) 
seems to imply that the action of the city required the sanction of 
the governor before the decree was valid, but it is also possible that 
the request for his approval was inspired by motives of vanity. The 
different theories of the purpose of the gerusia are discussed by 
Chapot, Laprov. rom. proc. (FAsie, 1 1 6ff. The senate passed a decree 
authorizing the establishment at Cyzicus of a neon, or organiza- 
tion of young men (138160 p. Chr., cf. no. 106). It may be 
noted that, in the later period, the Sidymeans did not think it neces- 
sary to refer the proposal for the formation of the gerusia to the 
senate. Cf. Suppl. Ep. Gr. i, 327, 330. 

(150-200 p. Chr.) 

An. ep. 1902, no. 164; Compt. rend, de I'acad. d. tnscr. et bel. 
lettr. 1902, 38; Dessau, 6780. 

M. Servilio P. f. Quir. | Draconi Albuciano | n viro, flam. 
perp., | quod super multa in remp. || merita et amplissimum | muni- 5 
ficentiae studium le|gationem urbicam gratui|tam ad L&tium maius 
peltendum duplicem susce||perit tandemq. feliciter | renuntiaverit, 10 

[ 441 ] 


ordo publi|ce ponendam censuit, et | cum is honore contentus | 
15 pecuniam rei p. remisis||set, populus de suo posuit. 

Found at Bou-Ghara (ancient Gigthi) in Tunis. The double 
cognomen and the form of the inscription make it probable that it 
belongs to the latter half of the second century. On Gigthi, cf. 
Reid, Municipalities of the Roman Empire, 293, and Constans, 
Nouv. arch, des missions > fasc. 14, 1916. On Latium minus and 
maius, cf. pp. 191 ff. and Reid, op. cit. 242. The legal distinction be- 
tween the two classes of rights was perhaps made by Hadrian. This 
inscription, with no. 95, illustrates the stages through which a 
village passed in its progress toward Roman citizenship. Gigthi, 
at first probably a civitas stipendiaria, had already been made a 
municipium^ since it had duovirs. Now it receives Latium mains. 
For another inscription from Gigthi, cf. no. 161. 

(saec. i vel n p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 634; T.A.M. 2, 291. 

Mdp/ciov | 'ATroXX&wSov vlbv Kvpeivcu \ 'AvroX- 
L6aoi> /cal \ 'tidvdiov, Tre\^i\iJLrifjievov || VTTO Tr}<? 
fcal TOV Si;yL6o[v], | ol aveipevoi, TOV ev/cv/c\iov \ TOTTIKOV 
TeXou9 dvearrjaav | e/c TOV IBiov Kara rrjv Siadtj/crjv \ a?roXt- 
10 TTQVTOS au[roi)] 6t9 TOV || T^9 aTeXeia^ \6yov dpyvpiov 

From Xanthus in Lycia. Sextus Marcius Apollonides, a Roman 
citizen and a Xanthian, left thirty thousand denarii as an endow- 
ment to provide funds for the munera or for some form of local tax 
in his native city. In Egypt we find TO ey/cv/c\t,ov reXo9 as a ten 
per cent, tax on sales, and it is possible that a similar tax is mentioned 
here. Those released from this burden set up a statue in honor of 
Sextus, and it is probable that a guild of merchants would render 
this honor, rather than hypothetical incumbents of a liturgy which 
might never be imposed. The sales-tax in the empire was usually 
one per cent. Cf. Hirschfeld, 

[ 442 ] 



(saec. I vel II p. Chr.) 
Ditt. Or. Gr. 527. 

......... op | 

['E?rt o-rparrjyov eo<]/Xoi> rov ft vecorepov, 
....... , | 6<5oe rw~\v ' \eparro\eir &v rrji ftovXrji errl 

p(ria>v [TOU? 7rapa<f>v\a\fca$ TO XotTrJoz/ air eavrcov eV ral<$ 

rroieio'Oai 7rt,8r}[/j,iav, <fr (Sere \\ fjwjSev eVepJoj/ avrol? 5 

r) povov i*v\a teal a%vpa /cal ^JLOV\TIV, aXXo Se /J,rj&ev \ 
a]XXa>t cSt ai/ vrore rpoTrcoi. 'Eaz/ Se r^9 irapa ravra 
f) e[repa)fc TTOLOVVTL o"v^\7rpd^r)t y e^Xev^devra TreTroiv)- 
TTpoarelfjiov ovofjiari 6*9 [TO Srj/jLocriov \ KarariO^evai avrov 
av eXevxOfjt, eiX?;7r</)ft>9 Trapd nvos, CITI\_IJLOV Se | elvai. Kal 
TOV9J eXevftOevras 7rapa(f>v\afca<f ^ \afjiftdv6iv T9 Trapd TT}[$ 

] ^ tca)fAdp%a$ d/covras <rr<f)avovv 10 
avrov TO] dpyvpiov, rfTis [S'J 

a rav^ra fjLt]6ev [y^eivecrdat, e/ Se /i?/, TOI^ virevavrict)? 
[avra ^rj nOevai \ e/9 TO ToO 'A7r]6XXft)ro9 dvaOtf/JLaTa, 
TOVTOV rov yfrrj(f)io-fjLaTo[<i rcvpiov \ Kai] eVe%oz;T09. 

From a village near Hierapolis. This document contributes some 
information on village-government under the municipalities. The 
villages of Hierapolis were provided with officials called comarchs. 
In addition police officers were sent from the city who had been 
guilty of making illegal exactions from the villagers. By this decree 
the paraphylaces are placed under more strict control, and are for- 
bidden to exact anything beyond a supply of wood for fuel, chaff 
for bedding, and housing during their stay. Other expenses must 
be met out of their own pocket. Honors must not be conferred by 
the village, especially under compulsion, and, apparently, if money 
is voted by the village to crown one of these officers, this sum must 
be restored. 

[ 443 ] 


(saec. i-n p. Chr.) 

B.C.H. 37 (1913), 90/. 

[<I>]Xai>itH ....... j ....... \e[6i>] rov epyo\d/3ov a>9 ore 

Xfc<n-[a ....]...] eav /j,rj /ca(ra) rrjv ev rr)t, avvypacfrfjt, 

5 \voiav (?) . . . ||. . . (Tv]fjL<f)(t)vov 777)09 e/crrjffliv, ei>o%o9 ecrrcu ov 


PAMN[. . . | . . . rrj]v xprjfjLdrwv e%o$ov rrji 

vir[ep (?)... | .. (?) fcal r&v Trji] iroXet, (rv^epovrc^Vy /cardXiTrelv 

SifCTjv rrjv [ . . . . | . . eSof 6 /tot (?) TOVT]OH r&t, 8 car dy part, Scop- 

10 Q&acLi* eVet roivvv ^:ar[ . . . . || ...... ]ar??z/ TrpoaoBcoc fji<yd\a 

\V7rov<rav y fC\evco roi/[9. . . | . .r^z/] Trpoppyo-w dpdf)vcu y 
Xeyercu, SKO, Svo Sc^airtjrd<; (?)... | ...... 

povfjievov rov eviavrov [ ..... | . . . . Siar^eXr) rrjv <f)povri$a rov 

Trpdyfjbaros elvai Trpb? [...(.... r]o^ Ibiov %pbvov eV^eXe/a9, 

15 eav Kara rrjv e/[ ..... !!] r ^ L ^ CTrcwfrevri, fcrjTrovp&t, fcal 
o^errjyovvn $>i[a . . . | . . . ] aTrordaaco e/9 rrjv rov fcaivov /3a\a- 
uelov r jri[iA,e\eiav (?).,. | ... ~\ov ov/c 6<f>e(\)rji, ^rj yevecrOai * el ycip 
ro\fJirjcrL ev r[wi, . . . | ... . Ja^cr^iXtot9 69 TO yv/JLvaacap^KOV 
Trepl /jLe[v ovv (?)... | ... oaTT^avwv /J,r) TT\OV rrpdrrecrOai rov 

20 avvrjdov? V^jrep (?)... || ... a]ura69 V/AWV rr\eova avvobov ev 
e/cdarcoi ^v\l. . . . | ..... ~\ra)v ^uXeta9' el /JLCV o %poz^o9 en, /AOI 
crvve^aype^tro .... | ... eirel ovv~\ aprrd^erai rrjc eireigei /J,ov y 
/ce\eva) TOV9 ryep^ovo-iao-rds (?) , . | . . . ]em9, prjBe Sta ravrrjs rf)$ 
avOaSias, teal eve[pyelv(?) . . | . . . . r^9 r>v] %v\(0v %p?/crea>9 0)9 

25 evBeeardrrjv {/Xr/9, 7roXe[t. . . ||. . .] fjiev yap rd%a Trepl rovrov 
/!., KOI 69 airav e7rei[yw (?)... | ... r]a9 reipias at*ia 009 rcoc 
Stf/Acoi, ..... rrjv /crrj[!;iv (?)!] avrov o'vvKe^copijcrdac' eirel 
ovv ra aXX[a Sieraga (?)....] /cal eri/jitoprjo-^dfjirjv rou? rovro roX- 
fi&vras Troieiv, dvayp[dtyai, (?)... | ..... ] rafielov o%vpcorara 

30 rovro TO St,dray/j,a /?e[/9a6GS(?) . . || . . . . itcavbv] effrai Tracriv evSiav 
e&avdyeiv. ^vrv^elre. \ 


rrjv o~rrj\\rjv %a[pafa9 dveOrjtcev e/c rail'] I8i(ov. 
C 444 ] 


This inscription was found at Beroia in Macedonia. The marble 
is broken on the right and left sides, and the restoration of the 
document is extremely problematical. The editors of the inscription 
suggest that it is an edict of an emperor, or the letter of a provincial 
governor. In brief, their interpretation of the contents is as follows: 
It treats of the friendly annulment of a contract which had been 
entered into between the city and a contractor who had undertaken 
some public work in which he had failed to fulfil the conditions. 
The suit is to be abandoned (1. 9), and apparently provision is made 
for some form of arbitration of claims (1. 12). The letter then takes 
up the case of a gardener who has diverted water from the New 
Baths, who is required to make amends or pay a fine to the gymna- 
siarch. Finally, hasty regulations are devised in regard to the supply 
of wood, which is becoming scarce, and the fines which are to be 
imposed for the violation of these provisions. It is unfortunate that 
the document is so fragmentary, for this might give us some informa- 
tion on the important question of deforestation in ancient times. 

(saec. i-ll p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1044; Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions of Cos, 26. 

[ TTvOo/nevoseicrov vfier^epov -v|r77<j!>t<7/na|[TO? on rijv 

eOero eVt | [rov iZeftao'roVy i/cav)$ rjKT^Oo/Jirjv 67T??- 

peias | [x^P l ^\ v avrov [rojOro TreTroirjfcevai,' $\\[bv r~\oLvvv t el ^ev 5 

eVl rov ^eftaarov \ [rj e'tfj/cXrjtw <yeu>eT<u, 7rpor[e~\pov e/^e | 
rrjv alrldv el Se err' /ie, TO | [7rapo]z> at*t,6%pa)$ Xa- 
[p\paftG)v~\a<; brivapiwv 8ca^L\iO)v 7r[]v\\[ra/co((iia)v) 10 

Kara] TO 7rpore[0]v L>TT' '[/A]O[{)] (r\_vv\Tay]fjia 8m Tot>9 </>f7oS[t]- 

icovvras* | [e^i/ 8]e 7rpo9 ravra /JLTJ y 

This inscription from Cos deals with the right of appeal. A 
citizen of Cos had lost his case in the local court, and threatened to 
appeal. The Coans sent a memorial to the governor, and his reply 
is recorded in this document. If the appeal is to the emperor, the 
governor must first examine the case to decide whether it should 
be forwarded to Rome. If the appeal is made to the court of the 

[ 445 ] 


provincial governor, the appellant must provide a cautio of 2500 
denarii, which was required by an edict of the governor in order to 
guard against unwarranted appeals (cf. Hicks, loc. cit. ; Mommsen, 
Zeltschr. d. Savigny-Stift., Roman. AbteiL 24 (1890), 34^.5 nos. 36, 
40, 90, 121). Nothing in this document implies that Cos was a 
civitas libera at this time, but the fact that appeals could be taken 
from the local court to the governor does not necessarily imply that 
Cos was a part of the province of Asia (cf. no. 90). On the status 
of Cos, see Chapot, La prov. rom. proc. (FAiie, \ 1 5. 



(saec. II p. Chr.) 

Rev. d. et. grec. 19 (1906), 83. 

(Primi versus, maxime mutili^ omissi sunt.) 

......... Se. .#9 ra pera \ [rr?]? GOL Trpoo-rj/covcrrj^ 7 

5 A,eui9, a//<a 7rpoz/oou/4e|i/o9 KOI rov ra 6<f>t,\6/jLva \\ r& 

ela7rpdTTcr\dai, rrji TroXet, KareTre^^^ev 8e (rot teal ra? Trap" 
fjfji&v | eV[ro]\a9 f (va /cal rrjv ri^ere\pav \ [(Tv]fji/3ov\r)V eV rot? 
10 7Tpa||[%0]?7(70/4ej><H9 e%[?7^]9. "J&ppoMTO. 

From Aphrodisias. This letter seems to refer to the collection 
of certain sums due to the city. Since Aphrodisias was a civitas 
libera (cf. no. 29), the governor could not interfere in her internal 
affairs without the consent of the civic authorities or the authoriza- 
tion of the emperor (cf. Pliny, Epp. ad Trai. 47-48). Reinach, 
who published the inscription, suggests that the document may also 
be interpreted as a letter from a governor to an agonothete as in 
CIG. 2742. 


(saec. II p. Chr.) 
IG. V, 21. 

Col. i ..... Se [r]ou[T]ft)z/ /ca[crr ..... | . . . ou8e7r]a>7roTe Trept rf)$ 
ep,avTo\y ....[...] irorepov TrpaSfjvai rj \iicf QoixrQai KOI (V]o|- 
[repov crv^Travra^ . . r]oi>9 dypovs q /card, pepos, irapaivm \\ 

....... i> fcal 

[ 446 ] 


[. . . 7rpoo-68]ou9 eveaQai,, el erepa 

TO rpLrov 

rfj? vvv | [ ...... rov] rpirov ....... 9 erejjoa?] 

................. Xe[a] | (vacaf) o[yre rrjv etc] r>v [eVJ^- Col. 

[r]ou9 a 

ovre a<>oJLr)v ravrrjv <elvecrdaL TO?<? <rvfco<)avTov(riv a>9 ra re 

/cal iSicoTiKa \\ /XT) TeKeieOat, Kara TOV$ VO/AOVS* Bio 8rj 5 


r)vapa)v fca /ire Kpcrrjpcov r) irpoKpipa 

eTTODi, $iaKpiveTa)\\[(Tav ol crweSJpo^, Trorepov 8(t)/cata)9 10 
yeivovrat, rj errl T&L r[aJ9 St|[/ca9. .r9 re 7r]po^9oXa9 iroieivQai, 
6t9 TO /i?) /c/36^r)|[z/at ........... oi o-ui/eJSpot r&t, Trarpicoc 

TIL eVr[o9 | ............... 

From Mistra near Sparta. The inscription is engraved in two 
columns, but the content of col. i can only be determined in a 
general way owing to the fragmentary condition of the stone. The 
document appears to deal with different problems. In col. i there 
is a reference to the rental or sale of public lands owing to a de- 
preciation in local revenues. In col. n the subject of appeal is 
considered. The emperor forbade appeals to his jurisdiction in cases 
involving less than a thousand denarii, and those which do not 
involve the death penalty or loss of civic rights. All appeals must 
be submitted to a board of synedri, who shall determine whether 
the appellant has just grounds for his petition or whether he is 
merely attempting to delay justice (cf. nos. 36, go, 119). At Athens 
syndics, elected by the people, heard appeals before they were for- 
warded to the emperor (cf. no. 90), while at Cos the governor decided 
such questions (cf. no. 119). It is evident that the emperors were 
seeking to discourage the practice of appealing to Rome on trivial 
questions, but uniform legislation had not yet been devised in regard 
to procedure. A comparison of this document with no. 90 shows 
that the free cities received laws from Rome, and appeals from their 
local courts to the emperor had already become an established 
practice (cf. Mitteis, Retchsrecht und Volksrecht, 8;/.). 

[ 447 1 



(saec. I vel II p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 3, 409. 

] Kai\[i]ov [\ovic\iavbv . . .]o[. . 
7rvr[aTr)pi,/cbv GVV \ re] avSpidcrw KOI 


5 /3ov\vrai$ re KOI e/cXT/crtao-rafr [ical 7rd~\\<Tt, 7roXerrafc9, /cr 
epya rfji TroXe^, Kpei\vovra TOTTI/CO, Sitcaarrijpia erecrw Koivco\ 
nre^^avra avv&vav e^9 TO *A\J;av\Spa)v 6^1/09, Trporj^ 
10 aavr\a KCU \\ \7rpeal3ev(Ta\vTa V7re[p rr^ 7ro]Xeft>9, | j/yeyof 9 r]oi) 
7r/o&)[reuo^T]o9 ev \ [rrji ira]Tpli. 

This inscription from Pogla in Pisidia was first published by 
Rostowzew in Jahreshefte d. ost. arch. Inst. 4 (1901), Beiblatt^ 
38^ The document is important because it marks the development 
of a village on an imperial estate into a municipal organization. 
The reference in 11. 68: Kpeivovra roiri/cd SiKacrrrfpia erecrw 
fcoivcoviasj shows that Publius Caelius Lucianus acted as local 
judge when the community was still a KOIVOV. On the quasi- 
municipal organization of the imperial villages and their develop- 
ment into towns, cf. Ramsay, Studies in the History and Art of 
Asia Minor^ 305^".; Rostowzew, Gesch. d. rom. KoL 288^. Cf. 
nos. 139, 140142; pp. 23/. It should be noted that the citizens 
of the new city are divided into /3ov\vrai, etctcXrjcriao-Tai and 
TToXi/rcu (cf. Levy, Rev. d. et.grec. 8 (1895), 209). 

(saec. II p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 788; Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics, 2, 462. 

'H /3ov\rj fcal o 877/409 teal ol KaroiKovvr^ 'Vcopaloi \ ereipricrav 
TijSepiov KXavBcovTipepiov KXavSiov Mi\0pi8dTov viov Kupet- 
vai Heicrcova WiOpibaTiavov, lepea \ Sia /3iov Ato9 K6Xa^^o>9, 
5 <yvjJiva(Tt,ap')(r}<ravTa $i d<yo\\paia<s teal a<yopavop,r)<ravTa SS dyo- 
paias, KOI tyrj/Sapxijo-avra, \ fcal vTrocryo^vw VTrep KXavSiov 
Tpav(v)iavov rov vlov j ^v^vaonap^iav L dyopaias e/c rwv ISicov 
KOI yapicraiLSvov \ riji, TroXei rov e% 0ovs St,B6fJLvov VTT 

[ 448 ] 


TOH yv/jbva\(Tiap'%ovvTL Tropov Srjvdpia pvpia Trevrateicr^eiKca teal 
Tr\i /Av || Trpcorrji, efa/zr^oH, ev *)i> teal rj dyopaios ijx,@y> @vra TO \ i 
\at,ov y VTrep Se T&V \OITT&V /ATJV&V cf oeooACOTa, | teaua)$ TI ?roXi9 
rj%l<0av, Srjvdpia ftvpia evaKi<T')(l\\ia, wo-re TrpoareGivra teal 
rovrov rovTTOpov \ Tol$ jJiv piois 7revTaKia^(ei\Lo^ Srjva plot? &(*)% w \\ 
rdteov Spa^/Malou 6/9 TO T&V teovparopcov 67rt,\rjiJLiov TO /eara 6T09 ^5 
VTT avrdiv 8iS6iivov, &<T\T ToO \oi7TOv ftpovov fJirj/eeTi elvai 

t C* ' rti \ /%i" 

tcovpaTo\pa<> y tcadcos 77 7ro\69 etyijyiicraTO, bi o\ov | TOU atco^o^) 
dvd&rao-w Troirjcra/Jievayv \\ ete rwv ISiow TMV ev rrjt, 6p/iatat 20 

From Apamea in Phrygia. The nature and purpose of the en- 
dowment has been the subject of considerable dispute. Mommsen 
(E.E. 7, 436jf.) believed that the city was enabled to dispense with 
the curator conventus Romanorum^ but this is unlikely, for the city 
probably had no jurisdiction over this organization. Ramsay (he. 
at.) believed that Apamea used the endowment to get rid of the 
curator reipubltcae. Thisofficial, however, was always sty led \oyi(TTr}$ 
in the East, and there is no evidence that more than one ever held 
office in any city at the same time. Nor is it likely that a city which 
could spend so lavishly would need a curator. It is possible that an 
explanation may be found in a document from Cibyra (Cagnat, 
IGRR. 4, 914; cf. ibid. 4, 259), where Quintus Veranius secured 
from the emperor the removal of Tiberius Nicephorus who exacted 
three thousand denarii annually from the city. It is, however, 
more probable that the endowment was devoted to defraying the 
liturgical expenses of certain officials in connection with the gymna- 
siarchy, and that curator is here used as an equivalent of liturgy 
(cf. Berard, B.C.H. 17 (1893), 312). For similar endowments, 
cf. nos. 1 1 6, 150, 189. 


(saec. II p. Chr.) 

B.C.H. 7 (1883), 504; Inschriften von Magnesia, 1 14. 
....& fcal Kara <rvv0ijfc[a$ avrw \ifc 

. . . .C00-T6 (TVp\PaL\VlV Vt,OT TOV ^ff^OV I? Tdfa^V fCdi 

viriTTTiv Sea rqv (r[/caio(ty\\]6yov tca(T)a(0)pa<riav 
AMA [ 449 ] 2 9 


eVl rrj dyopd arrdcrewv, efi ols e^prjp [au|]rou9 
r/S?; Bi/crjv V7roo")(eiv eirel Se TO rfj TTO\C 
rovTO)V Ti/JLCopia? fjia\\ov irpon^av dva^Ka 

\ avrovs oaxfrpovicrai. r 'Q0v aTrayopevco 
rovs dpTOK\_o\\Trov<$ KCLT eraiplav pyre Trpoearrj- 
Opa<Tvi'(r0a(,, TretOap^lv Be 7r[a^]|ra>9 ro?9 vrrep rov KOivrj 
irLraTTo^evoL^ KCU rrjv dlyay^Kaiav rov dprov 
10 epyaaiav dvev&eff irapfyeiv rfj iro\ei. f ft9 av d\w r^[9 au 
TO aTrb ToOSe rj <jvviu>v rrapd rd Siyyopev/Jieva 7; Oopvftov 
[/cal crra]|(jcft)9 e^dp^tov, fjuera'jre^dei^ T?; TrpocrTj/covcn^ 


s" eVl ?ro]|So9 


15 ryevrjcreTaL. \\ 'ETrl 7rpvrdvco<; K\(avBiov) MoSeciTOu, fjuyvos KXa- 

elirev^ T/;9 Be aTrovoias rwv 

^9 ( Ep/jbias 6 TT/W T?} FAMIAflMET. . . . 
.................. ANTH 

From Ephesus. The first part of this inscription contains the 
proclamation of the provincial governor who had been compelled 
to settle an outbreak and riot of the members of the bakers' guild 
at Ephesus. The subject of strikes in Asia Minor is discussed by 
Buckler, Anatolian Studies in Honour of Sir W. M. Ramsay^ 27 ff. 
The municipal authorities were unable to deal with the situation 
and were compelled to appeal to the governor. Similarly in Per- 
gamum (Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 444) the proconsul interfered in a strike 
of the builders. Cf. Acts 19, 24^., where the riot of the silversmiths 
at Ephesus inspired fear of being called to account by the governor. 


(150-200 p. Chr.) 

OIL. vm, S. 17899 - E.E. 5, 698. 

C. Annio Arminio Donato y c/arissimo puero C. Anjni Flavian!, 
pro*:, patrimoni tractus Karjthaginiensis, filio Anm Armini Do|nati, 
flaminis/>^r/>^ta/' nepoti, || concilium \>rovmciae Africae. 

Found at Thamugadi. C. Annius Flavianus took part in one 

[ 450 ] 


of the wars under M. Aurelius and Commodus (cf. CIL. vm, 
S. 17900), so that his son probably flourished toward the end of 
the second century. A tractus included several saltus, or imperial 
estates, and a procurator tractus held a post as important as that of 
a provincial procurator; cf. p. 19. This concilium prov. Africae 
seems to have been composed of representatives from the civitates 
of both Africa Proconsularis and Numidia; cf. Kornemann, R.E. 
4, 808. 

(saec. II p. Chr.) 

Rev. arch. 3 (1916), 339; An. ep. 1916, no. I2O. 

Sacerdoti omnium Caesar, T. Vetuiro T. fil. Gol, Campestir 
auguir n viro n vir q. q. n vir in panec rgrati anuon sacerdoti da. . 
Ircuri condtoir patriat H n misso lecmo. . .a colonai nurbemsike- 
viatco. . .semelouidemardivom Hadrianum. . . .m auem adopti- 
mum maximum oue. . . bisimpcaesar T. Aclium Hadrianum. . . 
Antoninum Auc Pium ex d. d. vicuscopdy. 


Sacerdoti omnium Caesarum, T. Veturio T. fil. Collina Cam- 
pestri, auguri, n viro, n viro quinquennali, n viro tertium. . . .et 
curator! annonae, sacerdoti Dei Mercuri, conditori patriae, quater 
misso legato a colonia in Urbem sine viatico, semel quidem ad 
divum Hadrianum, ter autem ad optimum maximumque. . . Im- 
peratorem Caesarem T. Aelium Hadrianum Antoninum Aug. 
Pium ex decreto decurionum vicus ..... 

On a marble column, found at Si nope, on which had stood a 
statue The mistakes in the text are due to the difficulty which the 
Greek copyist had with the Latin letters and words. That the 
position of sacerdos omnium Caesarum ranked higher even than the 
chief magistracy in Sinope is shown by the place which it has at 
the beginning of the inscription. Veturius like many other Asiatics 
belonged to the tribus Collina. The particular point of interest for 
us is the fact that Veturius represented his native city four times 
on missions to Rome. For similar cases, cf. nos. 53 and 115. 

C 451 ] 




(198-210 p. Chr.) 

GIG. 3178; Lafoscade, 72; Ditt. Syll* 876; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 

Oi Oeuorarot avroKpdropes ^eovfjpo? teal 'Ai/To>j/U>o9 Kai&apes 
| El KXavSios'Povfavos 6 TroXeirrjs V/JLV 6 Bid rrjv 
\ y (rvvecmv eirl TraiSeia /cal rov ev Xoyois (yvve^ff 
ftiov rr)v | Trpojcei/Aevrjv rots <ro</u<jra69 Kara ra9 Oelas rwv Trpo- 
5 yovtov || rjp&v Siardgew are\iav T&V \irovpyiu>v Kapirovp,evo<; \ 
v/jbtov avTov e/covaitodvaytcr) 7rpo/ca\ov/j,va)v v^earrj rrjv | arparr)- 
yiav Kara ro TT/OO? rfjv irarpiSa <f)i\rpov rr}v <yovv 669 rd \ aXXa 
/JLViv aTrpayfjioo'vvrjv aKelvyrov avra> Sixaiorarov \ temp* ov 
10 ydp a%iov rcG dvSpl rrjv t9 t>/i.a9 <f>i\oretfjiLav 7i>|| 

teal fid\i<TTa ravrrjv vfj,<5v airovvrwv VTrep \ avrov rrjv 
Evrv%ir. \ ^Trpeaftevov Au/>. > Arra)z/e^o9 fcal AltXio 

From Smyrna. The cities of Asia were classified in three groups 
according to wealth and population. A letter of Antoninus Pius 
to the provincial assembly gave permission to the cities in each group 
to grant immunity to a specified number of doctors, rhetoricians, 
and philosophers (Dig. 27. I. 6). Apparently the Asiatic cities had 
been too lavish in their grants of immunity to the professions, and 
the emperor curtailed their power in this respect. The case of 
Rufinus is not clear. Apparently he had enjoyed the privilege of 
immunity, but had forfeited it by undertaking a liturgy voluntarily. 
The city, apparently, had not the power to renew the grant at this 
period and sent an embassy to the emperor asking for the reinstate- 
ment of Rufinus in his former privileges. 

(saec. II vel in p. Chr.) 

Le Bas-Waddington, 1311; CIG. 43020 (Add. p. 1136); Ditt. 
Or. Gr. 572. 

'AyaQiji rirxyi. \ v ESoe riji /3ov\ijt, \ /cal r<i Brfficot,, | Trpvrd- 

5 vewv 7^co||yLt?;* eirel Sid ro \ /u,rj e!*vpi<r\tciv rrjv eirl Ai\fjivpa 

10 f jropOfjii\Krjv tovfjv rrjv a%l\\av crvvftalvei (\a)<r\<rov(T0at, ra? 

[ 452 ] 


erepov TrapaTfop^pevo-at, pybev \\ fiijre 15 

CLTTO T//9 Aaflr[e(]|a9 /JLtJT OL7TO TOV <TTo|//,aTO9 Tr)$ XlfJLVrjS I i) CLTCO 

'Ay&pa/a}9, \ rj 6(f)i\rf(ri TOH S^H^ou virep etcdarrov \ 7rXoo9 X 20 
ar', %ov\(rtav e%oi>T09 0-(T)e|p(?7)<ra> a7ro7/oa</>eo-|#a6 || TOV rrjv 25 
rof) re 7rX(n|ov Acat rwv <rtcv\<!)v avrov. || IIXeua-66 30 
ra aTro\yeypafJLfjieva \ 7r\ola Kal ol$ \ av crvv^a)pr'f\\(7rjc 35 
o TYJV tovrjv | e^o)z/, Xa//.ySa|roj/T09 7rai/TO9 | vav\ov TO 8' | /cal 

'Eai; | Se Tt9 airo<7ro|\oz/ vav\(!^arj]i y \ 40 

TO 8', | ^ UTTO- 45 

From Myra in Lycia. The right to ferry across the river Limyra 
was leased by the city to contractors, and considerable revenue was 
derived from this source. Private boatmen, however, had entered 
into competition against the company holding the lease from the 
city, and by offering lower rates made the municipal lease so unat- 
tractive that the city could find no bidders and was thus in danger 
of losing a profitable source of revenue. In this law the municipality 
creates a monopoly by forbidding private carriers the use of certain 
routes over which most of the traffic was carried. For similar 
monopolies, r/. no. 70; OIL. in, 7151, 7152. 



(saec. II vel ill. in. p. Chr. 

IG. vn, 2226, 2227, Add. p. 747; Ditt. 5y//. 3 

Map/co9 OuA,7T09 [. . dvOvTraros \eyet]. \ 'O 
icr/3ai(i)V %a)piov &ri[/ji,6crt,ov f) iepbv . . <j>v\Tevcrai\ TMV eV e/jiov 

9 ev avrwi TOTTOV re bv J3o[y\erai \aftelv fcal <f>opov bv 
fear \\ ey\i,avTov virep e/cdcrrov TT\e0pov[ . . \ ySou]X^9 ^ 
tcfc\r)(ria$ Kara TO BeboyiJLevov . . \ . .qw /c[al] a JJLGV Tt9 . . | . . TTJ 

. .v\\o~/coi teal a[. .| . .K\oival* ypa<f>Tco [8]' eV e[. . | fc]al TTJV 10 
7roo"Of?;Ta TOV <f)6pov [( T06J9 re ap^ovGiv Kal Se/caT^evTais] 
/ca[l !] T [ 7 ?]*' TCpbGobov TTJV fc [TOVT^WV Kal [. . ||. .r]a TOV 15 
TOTTOIA [A^i/rejre 8e [iJJTrep KCI[CTTOV %cop{ov 6 

[ 453 ] 


rov <f)6pov rwv Trpcorcov [eT]c3i> 7revr[e* eireira 8e 
Ka<rrov eviavrov] \ Saxret, rov <f)6pov rov err}criov ro\y K\ 
\afi/3avoji[evov ^(opiov rov firjvbs rov~\ \ 'A\a\KOfivaiov r[ff\ 
rrvreKaieic[drrf\* ol Be fir) rrpd^avre^ cr[rparr)ryol rrjv f rrp6cro~\\Bov 
vrrevdvvoi ecrovrat, aiv ov/c ejVpJafai/. E Se T9 \a/3cov [eV]ro9 
20 [7-779 7Ti/]||ra6Tfa<? firj (frvrevcrai, TO re yvsplov [^e^raTrcoXrjaov aw 
ol KaraKa,}jLf3dv[ovr<i\ \ (rrparrjyol (/c)al ov virearrj re\(Ti[v 
Trap avrov rr)9 [7revraeri\\as. E^ Be fyvrevcret, 
] a%iov rov <f)6pov rwv irevre r[w^, roi^ /^ei^] | 
fybpov fjirj 7Tparr(r8c0, TrnrpcKT/ceaOw [Se] TO %(i)piov 7ro\irrj y 
/cat TO apybv Ka\l TO 7r<^v]|Teu^ez/oz/, eVt TW rrjv JJLSV rei^v r\ov 
25 7T^(f)vrviJiVOV elaKO/jLio-Ofjvai rrj TroXfet, TOZ^] || Be <f>6pov Travrbs 
re\el(T0aL /cad' Kacrro[v~\ zviavrov, ocrov re\ea[e~\w /cal 6 Trpore- 
po[? a>/io]|Xo777<T6i/, <rvy){a)povfjivov TcS Trpmf/ze^Jw TOU cf>6pov 
Trevraeria? vTrep [rov dp]\yov /AOVOV. Kafjif3averw Se [o 
etcacrros fir) TrXeov 7r\60pa)[v . . ] | el fievroi T^9 <^a>pa6eLrj <pvrv- 
(ra? T[ouJT069 TrXeov, 7ra)\rjcrov(riv [ol crrparrjyoi | rc3 f 
30 T(WI> rro\irwv eirl ra> real etc rovrov o-^eaOac r[fj 

^>opo^] rocrovrov OGOV TfeXecre^^] a>/jLO\6<yrjcrv vrrep efcdo-ro[y 
rr\eOpov. *Hi/ Se firjSels \ fiovXyrai TrplaaOcu, Trpdgovo-^tv rrapa 
ro[y 7rpo)Tov \a/36~\vro<> rbv yeivofie^vov tyopov, \ ocrov virep 
fcd<rrov 7r\eOpov re\crLv UTreSej^aro. | 
35 [ . . rr\e\0pov To[0 . . | . . ]d/j,vo$ K.CLI . . || . . ov ef oaov T[ . . | . . 

?r]apa TT)? ?roXea)[9 . . | . . ]/ft> KOI ra aXXa /c 
40 fi&ov rov (fropov [ . . | . . rro\\elrrj Saveicrrfj, 0)9 

aiov %a)piov r) 8[. . | &]r)fjiocriov KaO* r)ji[. . | . . a]i;TO9 ypa(f)era) 
45 . . | . . VT . . 01 e/ca . . | . . TTOCTOV r) or . . \\ . . <ZT09 v ....... | 

[. . . . T]O T6 ovofia [T]O[I) . . | . . ] el Se Tt9 t;a7rartjcra[$ rwv] 

o<f)i\6v[ra)v %ev(p VTroOeirj | n rwv ^aypicov rSi\v Srjfjioo'ictiv KOI 
rovro \V%0lr) y d<f)aip[i<T0a) avrov TO | ^wpiov rb vrroreOtv] r) 
50 7roXt9, 6 Se Baveicrrrjs 6 f 61/09 etc rcov a\\[a)v Krrjfidrwv \\ rwv 
rov u7ro0]ez>T09 rrjv elcrrrpafyv Troieicrda) rov 6(f)ei\ofi[vov. Ki 
Se T^9 | Siaffijiclais Kara\irroi %ei>((> o-vvyevel rj <f)i\M rovrcov n 
r&v [%copicov, a/cvpos \ ecrrco d]vrov r} Scopea, earco Se rrjs 7roXea)9 
TO %a)piov. Et 8[e T^9 firj Kara\i\rro)v 8ia]@rj/ca<s reXevrrjcrai, to 
firj ei<riv vofiifiot /c\rjpov6fioi, [v]7r[ap%r(o \ rear 
tc\rjpov6fio<; rov eavrris /crr)fi[ar]o$ r} 

[ 454 ] 


M6&ecrT09 dvOvTraro? fccr/3[ea>i/ ro?9 re 55 
Kal"\ rij /3ov\f) teal rw StffjLq) ^alpeiv. 'I/cavbv 
[fjitv ovv . . | elvai] tcvpia rd Sofai/ra vpeiv Trepl rfjs 7rp6re[pov 
!] veyGwrjfjbewqs, /cal TO rov d^o\loya)rdrov . . | . . ejvr' \_CL\V- 
TWV GTri^aypiov /cal . . 

From Thisbe. Dittenberger dates the document in the beginning 
of the third century, while Rostowzew is inclined to ascribe it to 
the reign of Hadrian, or a little later. In accordance with this edict 
of the provincial governor, the public (and sacred?) lands of Thisbe 
are to be sold in small lots to the citizens of the town subject to 
the payment of an annual tax ((opo<?)> which, however, is to be 
remitted for the first five years of occupancy. The purchaser is 
under obligation to plant ((frvrevo-ai) in vineyard or orchard during 
this period. If he fails to do so, the magistrates shall sell the property 
and exact the tax for the first five years. If only a part of the land 
is brought under cultivation according to the contract, the magis- 
trates shall sell the allotment to a citizen, the price of the cultivated 
portion being paid into the treasury in lieu of the yearly tax, while 
the new purchaser shall pay the stipulated tax for the whole plot 
annually thereafter. If any farmer occupies more than the legal 
allotment, the magistrates shall sell the portion held illegally, safe- 
guarding the payment of the annual tax. If, however, a purchaser 
cannot be found, they shall exact from the first farmer the amount 
of tax which he agreed to pay for his original assignment. The 
tenant may mortgage or bequeath his holdings, but not to a non- 
resident of the city. If he dies without heirs, the property reverts 
to the city. This document belongs to the class known as VO/JLOS 
TrcoAT/TY/co? (Rostowzew, Gesch. d. rom. Kol. 386^.), and the 
form of perpetual leasehold instituted in the municipal territory 
of Thisbe is similar in all respects to that prevalent in Egypt. 
Several points of interest may be noted. The magistrates (crrpa- 
rrjyoi) are responsible personally for the exaction of the <f>6po<;. 
The doctrine oforigo is implied in forbidding any lease to be granted 
to aliens, and in the restrictions applied to mortgages and bequests 
to non-residents. The legislation of the governor is, furthermore, 
in the interest of the small proprietor, and every attempt is made to 
prevent the encroachment of the capitalist and his latifundia. 

[ 455 ] 


Finally, it may be noted that the central government at this period 
does not hesitate to regulate in minute detail the internal affairs of 
the municipalities in the provinces. For a discussion of the legis- 
lation regarding similar tenure of land on the imperial domains, 
cf. pp. 15^., and nos. 90, 1 1 1. 


(201 p. Chr.) 

OIL. in, 781 ; Cagnat, IGRR. i, 598; Bruns, 89; Dessau, 423; 
Riccobono, p. 332. 

Exemplum epistulae ad Tertullwn. 

Misimus tibi epistulam ad Heraclitum, unde intelleges quid sta- 
tuerimus de immunitate> quam Tyrant sibi concessam contendunt. 
Quam licet admittere non soleamus nisi privile\^\\ auctoritate per- 
pensa et origine immu\nitsitis inspecta, quod usu receptum esse qua\qua 
ratione videbatur, cum iusta moderations servavimus, ut neque ipsi 

5 coiu#tffft/i||ne diuturna pellerentur et in posterum \ decreta civium 
adsumendorum consi/iiV | praesidis provinciae c(larissimi) v(iri) per- 
penderetur. | Exemplum epistulae ad Heraclitum. | Quamquam 

10 Tyranorum civitasor/ginem || dati beneficii non ostendat, nee facile, 
quae | per errorem aut licentiam usurpata sunt, prae| scrip tione 
temporis confirmentur, tamen, | quoniam divi Antonini parentis 
nostri litte|ras, sed et fratrum imperatorum cogitamus, item || 

15 Antonii Hiberi gravissimi praesidis, quod attinet | ad ipsos Tyranos 
quique ab iis secundum leges | eorum in numerum civium adsumpti 
sunt, ex prijstino more nihil mutari volumus. Retineant | igitur 

20 quaqua ratione quaesitam sive possessam || privilegii causam in 
promercalibus quoque re | bus, quas tamen pristino more profes- 
sionibus | ad discernenda munifica mercimoniorum edenjdas esse 
meminerint. Sed cum Illyrici fructum | per ambitionem demiaui 

25 non oporteat, sciant || eos, qui posthac fuerint adsumpti, fructum | 
immunitatis ita demum habituros, si eos legatus | et amicus noster 
v(ir) c(larissimus) iure civitatis dignos esse de|creto pronuntiaverit. 
Quos credimus satis ajbundequ* sibi consultum, si grati fuerint, 

30 exi||stimaturos, quod origine beneficii non quaesijta dignos honore 
cives fieri praeceperimus. | 

[ 456 i 


'Qovivio? Te/9TU\\09 apxov&i, ftov\rjc t S??|/zaH Tvpav&v 
pew. | y AvTiypa<f)ov r&v Oeiwv ypafju/jLarcov, 7r/jL\\<f>0VT(ov poi v*rrb 35 
T&V /cvpiwv rjfji&v avi\K'Y) r Ttov KOI VTW%O'TdTCt)v avro/cparoptov, \ 
TOUT049 fiov rofc ypd/jLfjLa(n,v TTpoeVafa, oJTrft)? yvovres rrjv deiav 

69 v/j,as /J,eya\o\8a)piav Tr\i /j,yd\rji avrwv 
crijre. 'EtppoMrOat, vfjt,a<> KOI VTW)(elv 7ro\\\oi$ erecriv ev^o/jLat,. 4 
'A.ireSoOrj Trpo \ ly tca\av8<Sv Mapriwv Kyve&vos rj f . | *Av<TTadr) 
TTL Movfciavov fcal <&af3iavov \ VTrdrcov, ev root C/JLTT' erei, \\ 


From Tyra in Lower Moesia. Tertullus was the provincial 
governor, and Heraclitus the procurator vectigalis Illyrtci. The im- 
portance of the document lies in the fact that the Tyrans claimed 
immunity from certain taxes, especially the portorium (Cagnat, Les 
impots indirect! chex les Romains, 2O ff.}^ and, since they had been 
rather liberal in granting citizenship to aliens, the imperial revenues 
had suffered. The procurator, apparently, had complained to the 
governor and to the emperors, with the result that the Tyrans were 
asked to submit the evidence on which they based their claim of 
immunity. This they were able to do only in part, and from the 
letter of the emperors we may infer that certain cities in the empire 
had claimed similar privileges without any right to do so. These 
claims had apparently been disallowed, unless the city had been 
able to show the reason for the gift and the original charter. The 
Tyrans had only been able to produce the letters of Antoninus Pius, 
and his successors; the letters of the governor, Antoninus Hiberus, 
had also been submitted. Accordingly the emperors confirm the 
privileges which the Tyrans claim, but the grant of citizenship 
conferred by the city is hereafter subject to the approval of the 
provincial governor. Since citizenship in a community which en- 
joyed any form of immunity would be highly prized, it is probable 
that Tyra had been guilty of increasing her revenues by this means. 
Similarly Athens, enjoying the status of a free city, had bestowed 
citizenship so lightly in return for a small payment in money that 
Augustus took away the right to make the grant (cf. p. 139). 
Tarsus sold the grant of citizenship for 500 drachmae (Dio Chrys. 
34> 23). 

[ 457 ] 



(202 p. Chr.) 

Cagnat, IGRR. i, 766; Ditt. Syll? 880; Kalinka, Ant. Denk. 
Bulgar. 34. 

*A<ya0f) rv%7}. | 'T-Trep rfj<> TGOV /jLeyio-rcov fcal deiordrwv avro- 
Kpa\Topa>v A. ^eTTTifjiiov ^evrjpov TleprlvaKOS Ke M. Avprj. \ 
5 ' Kvrwveivov Se/3/3. /ce [IT. SeTrr. Fe'ra Kat<rapo9] fee \\ 'louXtW 
Kacrrpwv i>et'/c7?9 KOI alwviov I biafjiovris fcal rov 
avTwv oll/cov teal iepas <rvv\fc\rfrov fcal B^JJLOV rov 
KOI iepwv (TTparevfjidTtov, \ /cri(rdrj Kara Swpeai/ T<V 
evjropiov TIt^o9, eVl | vTrdrwv TMV tcvpiwv avroKparopwv 
10 A. 2e7r. ^Leovijpov YlepHrivafcos K M. Avp. ^vrwvelvov Se/8/3., 
Kal fJLT(fKLcrav 669 avro | ol vTroreray/jievoi,. \ 

KXa/009 | 7rpcr{3(VTr}$) Se/3(acrTft)^) avn- 

I 5 T/; Trpoo'^ret rcSi/ crra^yu-coz/ ?5 "^^[ Z/ ]| T6< > [ f l xvpioi 

<yt,<TTOi, | /cat Oeioraroi avrofcpdropes \ Sea nravros re rov eavrwv 

20 a/ci>|i/09 ftovXrjOevres ev rf) avrfj ev7rpe\\7ria Sia/jLelvai rr)i/ avrwv \ 
eirap'xelav, TTpocreVaf av ra 6v\ra zvTropia zTrufyavzcrTepa V7r[dp\\- 

2 5 ^a/, /cat ra pr} Trporepov 6Vra | 76^eo-^[a]^ Kal ryeyovev. \\ ['EJTret 
ovv Bet ra fc deias Scope |a9 6pfA(*)fAva VTV%crT6\pa elvai KOI etc 

30 T07rap||^ou9 /3ov\evra<> e/cekevcra \ efCTre/ATreo-Oai, cis ravra ra \ 
[]i/7r[op]ta, Sou9 auro69 /vat St' 7T6crTo|[X,^9] crrj fiavrri pa fcal 

35 SifcatoSoaiav \ [/cat eVrt]\a9 /it?; vflpei fjirjSe /3ta, || [8^/ca]too-u^77 Se 
/cat eVet/ceta | [/cp]a[T]6t^ roi/9 eVot/coOi^ra9 /cat | [^ /io]i/oi/ avrov? 
ravra 7rpacr(7|[et^, a\X]ri [/c]at avro 

40 rej/ot^etz/ TTpOTjprj/jievwv pve\\<r0\ja 

IIpo9 TOV elvai ev^aifjiovecTTepa \ ravra 
av$>pd\criv [e7ri\Tra[p~\evyelv i)So/ct/>tou^Tro[i/] e[/c] 

45 KMIJL&V, TrelBovras be \\ o . . /cat fieroLKt^eiv et9 rav\ra [r]a eV- 
7rop/a, /cat auro9 Se 7rpo|T[t^]e[/iez/]o9 /cat 701)9 /3ov\ofjievov$ \ 
eKOvrrjv rovro TTOielv e'oi>ra9 | deias Tv%r)<; TMV Se/Sacrrai^ || 

50 fJieydXas Scopeds, rovreanp \ 7ro\etri/cov aeirov dvi<r<f>opiav \ 
l crv ^[re\]eta9 ftovpyapicov Kal \ [<^]povpcov Kal dvyapeiwv 

[ 458 ] 


ave<Tiv. I Kal ravra /j,ev 7Tpl TT/9 Tae&>9 || [r]of) ro'irdp^ov /cal 55 
Trepl 7-779 d\tTovp\[yr)cr]ia<; rwv evoifcovvrcov rj vot,/cr)\[o'6~\VTa)V. 
Tlepl Se r&v otVo8o/i7/|[/ia]rft)z/, O7ra)9 eV^yueXeta? rvvfydvovra 
ei9 ciel biapevoi, \\ K\vco rovs roTrdp^ov^ Kal roi/9 | eTricrrdO- 60 

ra 7rpaiT(*)pia /cal rd f3a\\avela Travra^odev o\6/cXrj\\pa } rovreo-Tw 65 
eV rot9 ol/coSo/Mfcois | /cai eV ro?9 \7rrovpjc/coc<; teal ev \ T069 

T069 /ie^' eai/rou9 677pa<^)[o)]9, wcr- 


a>9 ra VTrp^ovra TMV roTrpxwv tea TWV p%pv- 75 
069 eVeXeucra | raJ /u'ft> /avbvvci) avrovs 7rpo/3aX|Xe(7^a6, 

elvai rc3 | STJ/JLOGIM TMV TroXewz/, ?rpo9 8e S[ta||Xu]cra)cr[6] 80 
aura ra eviropia 669 TO | [reJr/paTrXttcrfco^ rou 6VS6^a"oz/|ro9. 

From Pizus in Thrace. We have omitted in our text the names 
of the colonists who were settled in the new foundation. These are 
arranged in four columns under the villages from which they were 
drawn. In the fourth column there are nine names under the title 
vTraroi ol/ctjrope^^ probably one from each of the nine villages, 
who were chosen to act as magistrates in the new community 
(Seure, B.C. PL 22 (1898), 472^., 520^.). The number of colonists 
is 1 8 1. Pizus had the rank of an emporium or forum, and was 
established as a statio (crraOfjios) on the imperial highway which 
led from Philippopolis towards Hadrianopolis. The edict was issued 
after a visit of the emperors to Thrace, and it apparently formed a 
model for the creation of similar stations along the highway and 
throughout the province. The settlers were drawn from nearby 
villages, and they were induced to settle in the new foundation under 
the promise of remission of various liturgies, the annona^ the pro- 
vision of troops recruited for service in the burgi and garrisons, and 
angary, or the supply of animals and labor in the service of the 
public post. The residents are not called citizens but evoucovvrss. 
The duty of administration and of dispensing justice is entrusted to 
a member of the senate from the toparchy, or administrative district 
in which Pizus is founded (cf. Cod. Th. 12. i. 21). Apparently the 
government of fora had been given hitherto to ordinary residents 

[ 459 ] 


of the station (11. 25 jf*.). The chief magistrate has the title ro7rap%o9, 
and is assisted in his administrative duties by the nine virarot, 
olfcrjTope? mentioned above. These officials are responsible for the 
care of the public buildings provided by the emperors, and their 
property is held as security by the municipality or toparchy, which 
is entrusted with the administration of the station. The management 
of the buildings is shared with the troops stationed at the post, but 
the soldiers are not placed under a similar bond. On the fora in the 
Roman empire, cf. pp. loff. The reading <7w[reX]e/a9 in 1. 52 
is suggested by Rostovtseff, Journ. Rom. Studies^ 8 (1918), 26 ff.^ 
where he also discusses the liturgy of providing recruits for military 



(204 p. Chr.) 

Lafoscade, 74; Ditt. Syll* 881; OIL. m, S. H2O3 8 ' 9 ; IG. xn, 

5, 132- 

I 'lepa ypd/jifjiara. \ [Ajo^efc ^/zeZz/ TO Soyfjia \ [r]^9 avy/c\^rov 
5 7i/o|[e?]^, 09, eai/ per e/47re/||[p]ft>J> GvvawnftaKriw, \ [e^carjt fjurj 

elvat, e7rdvay\\_ic\^ o-vy/cXrjriKwi \ [SJ^/zou 'Pcofjiaicov a/cov\[ri] 

10 %evov i57ro8e^e||[(r]$a. 'ESo^?; | a KCL\. 'lovvi. 'Pcti/Arjt, | [OajyStcy^ 
~Kei\a)vi TO /3' /cal | [*A]i/i/ta>^ A.i/3a)vi vTrdrow']. \ 

11 Sacra<? ////erae<s>. | Videris nobis s. co. | ignorar^ qm si cum | 
5 peritis cont\ikris \\ scies senator! p. R. | nccess* non esse | invito 

10 A^pitem | suscip^r^. | Dat. pri^. kal. lun. Romae \\ Fabio Ci/one n 
et | Jlnnio Libone coss. 

From the island of Paros. This edict was issued in answer to a 
complaint lodged by a magistrate or private citizen on the island. 
The inscription seems to have been set up on the wall of the house 
owned by the senator who claimed immunity from the service of 
lodging officials or soldiers. There is no other record of the decree 
of the senate to which the emperors refer. The liturgy of furnishing 
hospitium was most severe, and complaints of the abuses which 
were inflicted by the members of the bureaucracy and army cha- 
racterize most of the documents of the third century. Cf. nos. 113, 
139, 141-144. On the character of this document, cf. pp. 236^. 
On immunity, cf. pp. 101 ff. 

[ 460 j 



(209-211 p. Chr.) 
Ditt. Or. Gr. 515. 

........ rjv ...$... I .......... ya ...... | ...... e<ret,v 

...... S.over ......... | rrjv /3ov\rj[v K\a\i rov Sijjjiov ...... 

| ...... ] ev 5 

........ | ..... ] dfoptfrOV TTCLCFIV 6'z>T09 To[0 ....... J . . , OU 

$aiv\r)rai Se Svvao-0[at, iaOfjvat, \\ TrX^jV] 8ia [rtjv r~\wv /jLeyio-rwv 10 
[/cat 0eiordrcov Kvp\i]cov TJ/AWV Avro/cparopcov Ao[u^tOf Sevrr^- 
ftiov ^eov\7J]pov Ei5(7^8oi)9 Tleprivaicos /c[al Mdp/cov Kvpr/Kiov 
' A.v\T(ti\vlvov [Eu(T6/3oi)9 KOI Tlo7r\lov %7rTt,fjLiou Fcra 2ey8a|cr]- 
TCOI/ rv^rjv y \frrj (frier part, rfjs y8[ouXr)9 real rov SIJ/JLOV 7r||a]i/op^ft)- 15 

etre oo9, cov rov 

fca p<ya%\o]/j,vov TTJV Tpdire^av, a/ie^/3oyite^[o9 
77 | 7rpt]a/ie^o9, 7rpo9 TOI/ rpaire^eirirjv [TOVTOV aye&Oat, \\ <yv]o- 20 

f3ov\fji [i5?ro rov 

7r[l T&V dp^ovrcov KOI 
el jj,ev dvev /coXkvftov roOr[o eVo/^cre, rov dpyvpiov \ rrpa\iv 
elvat, rd)L rpaTre^eirrjt fcal rcoc fjLiyvv<T[avri /cal \6v\n ) e]^oz/ro9 
rov rparre^eLrov KOI /car' avrov e%o[vcrlav rrpdrre\\ad(u, Ka\6a 25 
r}<r<$d\iarai, el 8e eVt /coXXu/3au, rov [/ii/ e\evdepov cnro\rlvet\v 
(e)69 TO iepwrarov rafjuelov r(5v KVplut\y TUJL&V 0eiord\ra)v] avro- 
fcparopcov X <', rdot 8e STJ/JLCOI, X oV, /c[al 
X p ', /cat TO (fxopadev dpyvpov[y i/6/it 

rwt rpaTre^e^irrji,* rov Se 8oOX||o^ eXje^^^ez^ra a>9 Trpo- 30 
t,, rrapa$o6ev\ra 8e VTTO rov SecrJTroToi;] T069 
ercl [TT7J9 f3ov\rjs, jjLacrreiyova6a[i v 
(e)t9 TO rrpaicropeiov KOI elvat, [avrov \ errl~\ rijs (e)ipfcrf)s ra<r- 
trofjievov /Jifjvas ef edv Se [o SeGr7roT7;9 pi) \ Tro^J^a-feJ^e ravra 
rov 8ov\ov y o(f)L\iv avrov ra [yeypafi/jieva \\ ercQreifia r&i, 35 
iepwrdrcoi rapelayi Kal r>i SIJJJLWI [teal rat, pyvvaavrt, Kal \ e\6]vn. 
Ta9 Se roiavras rrpoaavye\ia^ eto"Se[%cr^a^ rov 
To3i/] dp^ovrcov, yevofjLevrjs perd TO 7ri&[p0f)vai rqv 
\\iav Trpoypatyfjs efagfjs eVl Tpe?9 ^e[pa9 ev iepow \ Kal 8rj~\- 

T07T049, pyrd)? T^9 7rpoypa<f>ij$ {Xeyovwr)*; on \\ (7vvdy]erai 40 

[ 461 ] 


f) /3ov\rj Bid TOVTO. 'Eai> 8e ol ap%ovT\s rj 6 

TL TrapaXLTrcoaiv rj ol /3ov\vral [//,?) crvv\e\6a)~\<Tw 
SvvaTol 6We9 teal eV/S^yttof, rou? pzv [ap^ovTas /cal \ TOV 7/oa/u,]- 
fiarea aTrorelcrcu, e/cacrTov avTwv (e)ls TO [iepcorarov ra^elov \ rwv 

45 Se/3a](7Ttoz/ az^aX T', T0t>9 Se ftovXevras [dvd X . . dvaypd\\tyai Se 
roJSe TO '^rrj^La'/jLa ev arrjK^iy fjv KOI dva[o"Ta0rjvai \ SerjaeL ev Trjt\ 
dyopdt ev TWI eTridrifjiOTdrML TOTTM, &cr\Trep VOJAOV els TOV 7rdv\ra 
Karaarfjaov aaKevei <ydp a>9 d\r)[0($ ?; acorrjpla \ rfjs 
fc /cafcovpyia? Kal iravovpyias o\i[ywv TIVMV \ avrfji 

50 7r/JL/3(i~\u>6vTwv /cal djrovocrfyi^oiJbevwv T\_d fcoivd, wv VTTO \\ rfjs 
Svvd/jL^eo)^ /coXXu^8o9 Tt9 evTrecfroirrjfcev 669 [rrjv dyopdv, \ /cco\vcov 
rrjv 7ro]\iv rd eTrirrj&fyia %*>, aTropovvrtov \T(JOV 7ro\\>v \ /cal 
TOV KOIVOV ar^Travi^ovTos* Kai Sid TOVTO /cal TI ev\rropia 77 | ?rpo9 
TOU9 Kvplovs av~\TOKpciTopa<$ Ttov <f)6pcov $pa$vvei ......... | 

................... jULyd\r)s rjye/movias TOVTO Trdaa ?;.... 

55 ...... || ............... eTravop6<joo~at. Succlam(atum) est. 

(E)/9 ald)[va .......... | ........... ]CD^ avsiKriTQis TOI$ KV- 

piois, vaols [ ...... | ........ fcb\\\v/3ov. To ^rjv ov/c e%o/j,v, 

aXX' 77 7ro[Xi9 ........ | ........ TTOVij^pevo/jievol Tives eviro- 

peias Tap[dcro-ova'iv real \ TO vo/Aicrfjia .... ]of oriv TO dpyvpovv, 

60 teal TOVTO [ ......... || ............. TJOU9 VOfJiOVS TTO\\a/ClS T! 

/3o[uX?7 ........... | .......... ] 7T ...... TTO\IT .......... 

From Mylasa. As was the case at Pergamum (cf. no. 81), 
Mylasa derived a certain revenue from the exchange of local and 
foreign currency. The right of exchange was leased to a firm of 
bankers. Apparently private individuals had also engaged in the 
business to such an extent that trade had been demoralized and the 
revenues of the municipality seriously impaired. The document is 
of interest because the fines and penalties are imposed by the city, 
and the local magistrates and senate administer the law. This is 
the latest evidence for the independent powers of municipal govern- 
ments in initiating legislation in the imperial period (cf. Mommsen, 
Rom. Strafrecht) 114). The court is constituted by the magistrates 
and senate of the city. The secretary is empowered to summon the 
court on giving three days' notice. A fine, payable to the imperial 
fiscus y is imposed on any member of the court who fails to attend the 
session when he is able to do so. 

Reinach (B.C.H. 20 (1896), 523 ff.} offers the following ex- 

[ 462 ] 


planation of the monetary crisis. The municipal laws probably 
required the use of local coinage in the transaction of business within 
the city. As at Pergamum the rate of exchange was fixed. With the 
rapid depreciation of imperial coinage, traders and speculators 
purchased the undepreciated local currency and by holding it or 
by hoarding, it disappeared from circulation. There was a consequent 
rise in local prices and trade was seriously hampered. The law 
attempted to remedy conditions by confining all transactions in 
exchange to the municipal bank or to the firm which leased the 
privilege of exchange from the city (cf. nos. 81, 199). 



(213-214 p. Chr.) 

Ditt. Sy//. 3 883; Lafoscade, 78; Cagnat, IGRR. 4, 1619. 

e. \ Avro/cpdrcop \ Kaiaap Map/co? \ 


- 10 

TUX, TLfJLL\a)rdrcoL ^aipeiv. \ Et /cat /jirjSels aipel \ \6yo$ 
TOV ^i\aSe\\<f>ea *Iov\iavov d\\7ro rd)v ^ap8tavo)v \ els rrjv rr)<$ 15 

rovro TTO^OO, Si ov Kai \ rrjv vewKopiav av\rr)v rot? ^tXaSeXl^ei;- 20 
*'}ppa)cro 'Iou\^[ai/e] || nfjuc^rare fioi /cal <j)l\\ rare. \ 25 
ev TOIL \ Oedrpwi erovs o-fjie ', /jL7j\vb$ ^A7re\\aiov e, 

From Philadelphia. The letter is addressed to Aurelius Julianus 
who must not be confused with the Julianus about whom the 
letter is written. The latter was a native of Philadelphia who had 
become a resident of Sardis. Apparently he wished to undertake 
some liturgy for his native city possibly in connection with the 
imperial cult when the Sardians protested. Their motive was 
doubtless due to the rivalries and civic jealousies which so thoroughly 
inspired many of the cities of Asia under Roman rule. The Sardians 
had no legal claim to the exclusive services of Julianus, for by law 
the city of his birth took precedence over his place of residence 
(Dig. 50. i. i, 6, 1 6, 17; Cod. J. 10. 39. i). When the Phila- 
delphians took up the dispute with the emperor he replied that he 
would gladly fulfil the request of his friend Julianus, even if he had 
no legal right to do so. 

C 463 ] 


(222 p. Chr.) 

CIL. vi, 1454; Dessau, 6109. 

Imp. Caes. M. Aur. Severo Alexandro | cos. eidib. Aprilibus | 

concilium conventus Cluniem. | G. Marium Pudentem Cornelia-|| 

5 num leg. leg., c. v., patronum | sibi liberis posterisque suis | co- 

optavit ob multa et egregia | eius in singulos universos|que merita, 

10 per legatum || Val. Marcellum | Cluniensem. 

Bronze tablet found at Rome. The patron in this case, Cor- 
nelianus, a legatus legionis, belongs, as most patrons do, to the 
senatorial order. In Pliny's time Hispania Citerior was divided into 
seven conventus (N.H. 3. 3. 18), one of which had its seat at Clunia; 
cf. Kornemann, R.E. 4, 805, 1177; Schulten, R.E. 8, 2037. The 
election ofapatronus by this concilium conventus seems to show that 
the conventus of Hispania Citerior was a political as well as a judicial 
division of the province. For a general treatment of the concilia^ 
r/ pp. i62/. 

(223 p. Chr.) 

CIL. ix, 338; Dessau, 6121. 
L. Mario Maximo II, L. Roscio Aeliano cos., 
M. Antonius Priscus, L. Annius Secundus iivir. quinquenn. 
nomina decurionum in aere incidenda curaverunt. 

aedilicii : 

T. Flaviu 8 Crocalianu 8 
(et alia nomina duo- 

de t viginti t in his) 
L. Faeniu 8 Merop 8 iun. 


L. Ceiu s Asclepiodotianu s 
(et alia nomina octo) 


Q. Fabiu 8 Fabianu s 
(et alia nomina tri- 
ginta et unum) 

T. Flaviu s Frontinu s 

C. luliu 8 Hospitali s iun. 

L. Abucciu 8 Proculu s iun. 

(et alia nomina vi- 

ginti duo) 

C 464 ] 

patroni cc. vv.: 


App. Claudiu 8 lulianu s 

T. Ligeriu s Postuminu s 

T. Loreniu s Celsu s 

T. Annaeu 8 Rufu 8 

M. Aediniu s lulianu s 

L. Abucciu s Proculu s 

L. Didiu s Marinu s 

T. Aeliu 8 Rufu s 

(et alia nomina viginti 

T. Aeliu s Flavianu s 

septem t in his) 

M. Antoniu s Priscu s 

M. Statiu s Longinu s 

L. Anniu s Secundu 8 

C. Petroniu 8 Magnu s 

allecti inter quinq.: 

M. Statiu a Longinus iun. 

C. Galbiu 8 Soterianu 8 

patroni eeqq. RR. : 

L. Abucciu s lulianu 8 

P. Gerellanu s Modestu s 

C. Siiiu s Ant*u 8 

T. Ligeriu 8 Postuminu s 

P. Aeliu s Victorinu 8 

T. Munatiu 8 Feli x 


T. Flaviu 8 Crocalianu s 

A. Caeselliu 8 Proculu s n 

C. Galbiu s Soterianu 8 

L. Faeniu 8 Merop 8 n 

T. Aeliu 8 Rufu s 

L. Abucciu s Maximianu 8 

T. Aeliu 8 Flavianu s 

g. luniu a Alexandc r n 

Q. Coeliu Sabinianu s 

(et alia nomina viginti 



A bronze tablet found at Canusium, now in Florence. Such 
lists were drawn up by the quinquennales. The regulations governing 
the revision of the list were usually stated in the lex municipii. For 
the early period, cf. no. 24, 11. 83 ff. In the later period the inter- 
ference of the emperor is evident (Dig. 50. 3. 2, qui dignitates prin- 
cipis iudicio consecuti sunf). This album shows the normal number of 
one hundred decurions (cf. no. 151). In it also appear the names of 
thirty-nine patroni and twenty-five praetextati. In the album of 
Thamagudi (OIL. vm, 2403; S. 17824; Dessau, 6122), of the 
middle of the fourth century, there are twelve patroni and fifty- 
nine decurions, and of the decurions a majority have been famines 
perpetui^ i.e. they have been priests of the imperial cult and conse- 
quently officially connected with the central government (Jullian, 
Diet. Dar. s.v. flamen, pp. 1180^.). OnM. Aedinius Julianusin the 
album of Canusium, cf. no. 140. On patroni, cf. nos. 42 and 135. 
The groups of active decurions are arranged in the order of their 
rank. At the end come the pedani who have held no magistracy, 
and the praetextati^ who were probably, for the most part, sons of 
decurions. However, all the sons of regular decurions cannot have 
been of age to wear the praetexta. Consequently the decurionship 
cannot have become hereditary as early as A.D. 223. Otherwise the 
names of minors would naturally appear in the list (Mommsen, 
Festschrift %u Hirschfeld, 4). The acceptance of the hereditary 
principle probably became the usage in the times of Diocletian and 
Constantine. It is explicitly laid down as a principle (Mommsen, 
op. cit. 5, n. 4) by Theodosius in Cod. Th. 12. I. 20: Is vero ratio 
divers a est qui statim ut nati sunt curiales esse coeperunt. One group, 
whose presence in the album of Thamagudi a century and a half 
later and whose absence here is significant of a decline in municipal 
prosperity and of a desire to avoid the burdens which were being 
laid on the decurions as time went on, is that of the excusati. They 
were excused from the munera of the office. On the munera, cf. 
pp. 84^*. The name of C. Petronius Magnus has been erased from 
the album, but may still be read. Dessau conjectures that he was 
put to death by Maximinus; cf. Herodian, 7. I. 5; Hist. Aug. 
Maximin. 10. I. 

AMA [ 465 ] 3 o 



(222-235 p. Chr.) 

Rev. d. et. grec. 19 (1906), 86 /. 

[a8r) a\icb\ov9ov 

5 tca0o)<rt,(i)fjiva$ \ [T]^ /jLyd\7j avrov rv^rj <f>i\iv re || /cat 

orrep fji nroielv 77860)9 | #[a]t avrol tcrre, %aipera)<; Se ra? 
rL\/jL / rj0LO'a^ ri) eKevOepia vrro r&v 7rpo\yovwv rov fcvpiov TJIACOV 

10 avro/cpdropo^] \ (' A\e};dv8pov) fteftaLOVVTos avro[v \\ avr]rjv 
fcal av%ovro<$ ra Si/ccua ol[9 | eu^fj/Ltetcr^e /ecu ^Seco? eXeu(ro/>ta[6 | 
TT/oo?] u/ia<? /cat eV^S^/i^Va) eV r^ Xa/iUVporjar?/ TroXet, vfiS)V KOI 
rrj Trarpico V/JLWV \ [Oea\ Qixra) vTrep re r^9 (ra)T7)pias KCU ai<o\\- 

15 [i/]toi; biajjuovris rov re Kvpiov rjfju&v av\TO/cpdropo<> ('AXefa^S/oof) 
/cal T>79 ^f/9|[/a9] ^/iwz^ 2y8aa-T779 (Majj,aia<i) ^rpo^ \ rov fcvpiov 

20 77xwi> :al (rraroTreScw, el 

rj TroXet u^coi^. t <yap rt 

25 [aXXo69 || 6e\ol$ VTrep re r>)9 Tv*)(r)$ /ca[l (TcoTtjpias \ /c]at alwviov 
f)<? rov fcv[piov TI^V\ \ avro/cpdropos CA\%dv8pov) [/cat 

o9 avrov (Ma/jLaia<i) 

30 /cat rr)z> rrdrpLOV vp*&v [6edv y\\rc]a\<ro/Aai,. TaOra 8e a 

TTpcoroi? T7J9 

Since Aphrodisias was a clvttas libera, whose privileges had been 
confirmed and extended by Alexander (1. 10), it could not be sub- 
jected to the expense of entertaining the provincial governor and 
his staff. In free towns this immunity was secured either by the 
municipal laws, a decree of the senate, or an imperial edict or letter 
(11. 1 8-22). The governor is evidently Sulpicius Priscus (cf. no. 1 38). 
The name of the emperor has been erased on the stone. 

[ 466 


(222-235 p. Chr.) 

Rev. d. et. grec. 19 (1906), 84. 

'O SfjfAos | T??? \afj,7rpoTaTr)s \ * \<j>poei<nea)v \ vroXeo) 
Trlfciov || TlpeiGKOv TOV Stajcr^/^oTaTOi/ avOv\7rarov Kara TO.? TOV \ 5 
l Oeio\rdrov tcvpiov fj/Aoov \\ avro/cpdropos 2eoi |[*?]poi; 10 

This inscription was recorded on the base of a statue set up in 
honor of the governor. The name of the emperor had been erased 
in antiquity. Although the restoration of the last word is un- 
certain, it is clear that the Aphrodisians had asked the emperor for 
permission to erect this statue. Augustus forbade provincials to 
pass honorary decrees for a governor until sixty days after his 
departure from his office (cf. p. 164). The erection of an honorary 
statue to provincial officials seems to have required special per- 
mission, but this is the only example in Greek lands known to us. 


(238 p. Chr.) 

CIL. m, S. 12336; Cagnat, IGRR. i, 674; Ditt. Sy//. 3 888; 
Riccobono, p. 371 ; Girard, p. 205. 

Bona Fortuna.